1951-10-30

LABOUR-PROGRESSIVE PARTY PRIVILEGE, MR. DREW  REFERENCE TO ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN PAMPHLET    STATEMENT OF MR. SPEAKER

Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday, after prayers, the leader of the opposition raised a question of privilege and handed me a copy of the pamphlet to which he had made reference. He asked me to "give consideration to the course which should be followed in the circumstances". After examining the authorities, I find it is clear that it is not the function of the Speaker, nor is he empowered, to decide what should be done in matters of this kind.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in following the procedure I did yesterday I was aware that proceedings are not initiated by the Speaker himself; but I followed that course so that I might bring to your attention as the Speaker of the house, and through you to the government, the nature of a pamphlet which reflected very seriously upon the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) and upon all members of the government. I recognize that for a procedure of this kind to be effective it must be initiated by the leader of the house or by a member of the government. I would hope that, with this information now before the house, the government would consider what steps should be taken. I would point out that, in addition to any other proceedings, there is the question of criminal libel. I leave the matter with the Prime Minister and the government. With the information that is before the house I would further suggest that while I certainly did not at the time approve, nor have I since approved, of the procedure of putting anyone in concentration camp without due process of law, nevertheless there were placed in concentration camps people who had said less to reflect on the institutions of government and of government itself in this country than in this particular case. I most earnestly hope that steps will be taken, and that on this particular occasion the effort to find Mr. Tim Buck will be more successful than was the case the last time.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, fortunately this
country is not at war at the present time and the Defence of Canada Regulations, which made it the duty of the Minister of Justice to place in internment camps anyone who might be a danger to Canadian institutions, are not in force at this moment.
This country is still functioning as a free country, and it is very difficult to use the powers of government or the processes of the courts against any political party and be sure that the line will be drawn and maintained at the proper place.
I have had some inquiries made about this pamphlet, which is a vicious thing-there is no doubt about that-but it is at the same time a colourful thing, something which I think for most Canadians carries with it its own antidote. I find that it does not appear to have been distributed through the mails nor to have been distributed in factories or plants. My information is that it made its first appearance on September 22 at a meeting called by the promoters of those so-called petitions for peace. It is unfortunate that they have placed themselves in the position where they can pretend to be advocating peace and in opposition to those they choose to describe as people who want war. I think that everyone in this country knows that there is no one in Canada who wants war, and when they try to create the contrary impression they are themselves providing an antidote for the attacks that they level against those who have the responsibility of public office at this time.
I am told that at this meeting in the city of Toronto there were about 1,700 people. A meeting of 1,700 people in the city of Toronto called by a group that is pretty generally recognized as having communist leanings is apt to comprise a pretty substantial portion of communists themselves, and 1,700 people in Toronto is not a very large meeting, as those of us who have attended meetings in Toronto very well know. Now, this was not handed out; it was offered for sale at five cents a copy, and there were a certain number of copies sold. We have not been able to ascertain that it has made its appearance anywhere else.
I have looked at it carefully. There might be grounds for prosecution for criminal libel, but I have practised law for thirty-six years and I have had something to do with quits a number of libel cases. Where I was acting for the plaintiff it was very seldom we
510	HOUSE OF
Labour-Progressive Party reached a judgment without having come to feel that perhaps we had made a mistake by ever starting the thing.
I have been ten years in politics, myself, at this time and, fortunately, I have never had to start any libel proceedings. I do not know what the reaction would be of most cf those who bought this at five cents a copy at this meeting in Toronto on September 22; but I feel almost conceited enough to hope that possibly all there in that place, and almost anyone else who gets it, would feel as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew' has felt-whatever his disagreement may be with Mr. Pearson, with Mr. Claxton or with me on domestic policy-that this is an unfair attack.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, to what has already been said I wish to add only this, that I was suggesting only that procedure be taken in a correct and legal manner. I was not suggesting for one moment-and I thought I had made that clear-that any emergency or other special powers be invoked beyond those which have been so well established in peacetime for many years. But I do wish to assure the Prime Minister that I have good reason to believe that this pamphlet has been distributed on a much wider basis than he has been informed. I shall be happy to communicate the information I have in that respect to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), because I think I can say with fairly definite certainty that this has been distributed at certain plants, as well as among other people remote from that meeting.



WHEAT AND COARSE GRAINS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the serious harvesting conditions and the difficulty in delivery of this year's crop, is the minister prepared to make a statement as to what steps, if any, the government proposes to take toward providing some measure of assistance to those farmers who have been unable to deliver their grain?
My second question is this: Is the minister now in a position to advise the house concerning final payment on the 1950-51 wheat deliveries?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vegreville gave me notice of his question-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: You mean he received a notice of your desire to speak.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -and I am therefore taking this opportunity of making a short statement on the delivery position of western grains.
To judge from some of the statements made in this house and elsewhere, one might be led to the conclusion that there is a serious shortage of elevator space in all parts of the prairie provinces. In fact, this is by no means the case. According to the information available to me, there are still a large number of stations where producers' deliveries have not been sufficient to utilize the available space. I think it is likely that at least ninety per cent of the farmers who have been able to thresh their grain will be delivering more grain this autumn than they did in the same period a year ago. Just how much grain will be threshed and deliverable is, of course, another matter, which is beyond our control.
It is unfortunate that this condition of congestion should exist in any part of the west but it is important to realize that the condition is not general.
What is the explanation of the present situation? Let me give a brief review. It has not been possible to operate during the past three months on the basis of an equitable distribution of cars to all elevator points. Had available cars been supplied to country points when the elevators had only low-grade wheat to ship, this would have meant increasing the stocks of low-grade wheat at terminal points, particularly at the lakehead. Because there had already been a heavy movement of low-grade wheat to the lakehead, space in the terminals had become very restricted for moving through the heavy volume of the higher grades of wheat which have been sold for export during the autumn and winter months.
One need only look at the grades of wheat in store at the lakehead to appreciate the significance of the situation. On October 25 there were 51-1 million bushels of all grains in store, which is very little below the point of congestion, having regard to the wide range in grades of all grains being carried there. Of the 51-1 millions, there were 35 million bushels of wheat. Of this quantity there were 5-7 million bushels of grade No. 4 northern or better, and 29-3 million of other grades, including Nos. 5, 6 and feed. This is evidence of the very small stocks of milling grades of wheat that are being turned over at the lakehead in keeping up a heavy lake movement against our export commitments, and is the reason why we are giving preference to the shipment of milling grades from the country.

Let me give you the actual position on space in the country elevators. Total rated capacity of the country elevators is 286 million bushels. Usually 10 per cent of this figure is deducted to arrive at the net working space in the elevators. Thus there are 257 million bushels of net space. At July 31, 1951, there were 100 million bushels of grain in store, leaving 157 million bushels of space available for the delivery of grain. From August 1 to October 25, total grain deliveries to elevators amounted to 195 million bushels, and rail shipments of grain from country elevators amounted to 148 million bushels. Thus there was of last week end 110 million bushels of rated space still available for the receipt of grain. It must be appreciated, however, that owing to the heavy moisture content of much of the new crop grain it may not be possible to utilize all the temporary annex space.
To demonstrate the very good over-all situation in regard to space, in one week ending October 18 a record weekly delivery of 43-7 million bushels was established for wheat, in addition to the delivery of over 10 million bushels of other grains in the same week. That is the largest delivery in one week on record.
With the car supply running at its present rate another 80 to 90 million bushels of grain will have been moved from country elevators between October 25 and the close of navigation, so that this space of approximately 90 millions which will be developed in addition to the 110 million bushels of rated space now available will amount to about 200 million bushels of rated space.
Again I mention that if the car supply could be equitably distributed there would be no serious trouble at individual points. I would like now to read a statement issued by the Canadian wheat board on October 16:
The Canadian wheat board today announced that, with the approval of the transport controller, the railways had been requested to concentrate their efforts on the prompt shipment of milling grades of wheat to Vancouver and to the lakehead.
With only about six to seven weeks remaining before the normal close of navigation on. the great lakes, a major effort must now be made to move as much wheat as possible even though this means that the railways will concentrate for the time being on nearby stocks and the fastest possible turn around of cars.
"With the prolonged delay in harvesting and the resultant shortage of supplies of milling grades of wheat in eastern positions and at the Pacific coast, we have asked the railways to concentrate on getting the largest possible quantity of wheat to the lakehead and to the Pacific coast in the next six weeks," stated George Mclvor, chief commissioner, the Canadian wheat board, today. This undoubtedly means that the railway's for the time being will concentrate on shipping the most accessible stocks of wheat now in country elevators.
Mr. Mclvor pointed out that this was the second emergency action taken to meet the situation
Wheat and Coarse Grains
created by the long delay in harvesting operations and the urgent necessity of getting stocks of milling wheat into forward positions to meet large commitments and to provide Canadian mills with their requirements. The first emergency action was taken on October 3, 1951, when delivery quotas on high-grade milling wheats were temporarily suspended in order to augment supplies of wheat in country elevators to permit the most effective use of available transportation.
Mr. Mclvor stated that the board was reluctant to seek the approval of the transport controller for a concentrated movement at this time. He pointed out that with good crops in most areas of the prairie provinces, the board would have preferred the widest possible and most equitable distribution of cars at this time of the year, and this would have been possible had harvesting proceeded normally from mid-August onward. However, with harvesting delayed from six to eight weeks over most areas in the prairie provinces, time is now running out and there is no alternative to an immediate emergency shipping program if sales commitments for the fall months are to be met.
It is not unusual in late October and November of each year for the railways to concentrate on the shortest hauls in order to get a maximum quantity of grain in eastern positions to take care of the autumn and winter export movement, as well as domestic requirements, after navigation is closed on the great lakes. As soon as navigation has closed it is the intention to direct cars to the points which, because of their low-grade stocks, or their distance from the Pacific coast or the lakehead, have had an inadequate car supply up until now.
The government has been giving the most careful consideration to all aspects of the grain situation in western Canada. The brief statement I have given indicates the nature of the problem and what is being done to deal with it. It should not be overlooked that within the next few weeks some $100 million will have been distributed to western farmers by way of participation payments on last year's crops of wheat, oats and barley. These payments, incidentally, will be of substantial help not only to those farmers who find their delivery points temporarily congested, but to that much greater number of producers who because of exceptionally bad weather this autumn have not yet been able to thresh their crops. Whether it will be necessary to provide for a system of advances on farm-stored grain, I am not yet in a position to say. As I have indicated, the need: for such advances is not a general one and would be of benefit only to a relatively small proportion of producers. There is also the usual kind of credit which would I am sure continue to be available to farmers who have grain to deliver but who must hold it somewhat longer than usual. However, the government is keeping the situation under careful review and has not ruled out the possibility of action along 'the lines mentioned.

Wheat and Coarse Grains


Mr. Argue:: I wonder if I might ask the minister a supplementary question. Is anything being done to see that Saskatchewan gets its fair proportion of the box cars available? Most of these cars are going to Manitoba and Alberta.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is true, but I can assure my hon. friend that at the close of navigation the points that are now being served and are congested due to the storage of low-grade grain will receive attention. After the close of navigation the effort will be concentrated on permitting grain to be moved at those congested points, which amount to about 10 per cent of the total, and which have not been receiving their share of cars up to the present time.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I should like to direct a further question to the minister. What is the position at the head of the lakes as to grain delivery and what did the minister find as a result of his recent visit as to the probability of grain being moved forward with greater speed than heretofore? In connection with the situation in Saskatchewan, did not the minister receive a telegram within the last few days to the effect that some 528 pool elevators in Saskatchewan are plugged, the great majority being on Canadian Pacific lines? If he did, what consideration is the controller giving to assuring a more equitable distribution of cars to Canadian Pacific lines? I am not allowed to debate the matter, but the elevators on Canadian Pacific lines have not been receiving their fair share of the available cars.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I received a detailed statement from the pool about a week ago giving the number of elevators that are congested and I can assure my hon. friend that it was only a small fraction of 528.


John George Diefenbaker: It is 528.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who signed the wire that my hon. friend has in his hand?


John George Diefenbaker: According to the Western Producer the Saskatchewan wheat pool wired the minister last Friday advising him of this situation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I must say that I have not received that wire. I did receive a letter from George Robertson, the secretary, signed by his own hand, as we say in the house, which mentioned the congested points. I did not count them, but if there were one hundred I would be greatly surprised. I must repeat that it is necessary to meet Canada's export commitments. To do that it is necessary to

get grain of certain grades forward to the seaboard before the close of navigation. That we are doing. After the close of navigation the effort will be concentrated on the points that are not receiving their normal proportion of attention at the moment.
My hon. friend asked about the position at the lakehead. There are 51 million bushels in store, a large proportion of which is low-grade wheat and coarse grain. That makes it necessary to concentrate on the movement of high-grade wheat, which is being done. Practically all the carriers on the lakes are being directed into the grain trade, at some expense to the ore trade. The car supply from the west is ample to keep up with the boat shipments. There seems to be a balanced situation that is going quite well.


John George Diefenbaker: Was there not some question about additional men being required to handle the shipments?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was some question of the men being asked to work Sundays on the loading of ships, but the need for that is not apparent at the moment because there are very few cars on the track. The cars are being unloaded as they are received. The proposal that the men work Sundays is more a precaution for the future. The request made by the transport controller is still under advisement by the men. I know these men fairly well and I know if cars are required to be unloaded on Sunday they will be unloaded, whether the men as a group agree to unload them or not.


Mr. Wright:: I think the minister is correct in saying that a fair amount of space is available on the Canadian National lines, but on the Canadian Pacific branch line there is just not any space available, and has not been since last fall. The Canadian Pacific has not received-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Percy Ellis Wright: What steps has the government taken to see that the Canadian Pacific gets better service?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can only repeat what I said, after the close of navigation the first attention will be given to relieving those points which have been congested.


Mr.   Baler@: Is there still an embargo at certain country points on the shipment of oats and barley into country elevators?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know of no such embargo and there has been no order up to date to that effect.



RAILWAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, October 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chevrier for the second reading of Bill No. 12, to amend the Railway Act.
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage in the debate on this measure I think there is very little new that anyone can say. As a result I shall take only a few minutes to put my position on record. The principle of equalization of freight rates which the bill purports to put into effect is one that we from the west have advocated for many years. We have called for its adoption. As a result naturally I support the bill. The general principle of equalization is sound but in Canada we have an extremely tangled situation so far as freight rates are concerned. Probably there is no section of the country that, for one reason or another, wants complete equalization.
So far as the west is concerned agriculture, which is and will continue for a long time to be our basic and most important industry, has been hampered by the cost of transportation of our products to market and the high cost of transporting the supplies which we need, particularly machinery and things of that kind. As a result the Crowsnest pass rates are essential to the agricultural industry of western Canada. Those rates must be continued no matter what we may say otherwise as to the desirability of equalization The cost of goods to the farmer means that the cost of production in the west is out of proportion to that of other parts of Canada. One instance only as an example is enough to illustrate that. In most places in the west we pay from $200 to $250 more for an automobile than in Ontario, and as everyone knows, at the present time an automobile is essential to the farmer of the west in carrying on farming operations. The same sort of thing applies to every other type of manufactured article which we have to buy. Because of the disadvantage under which we work it is only just that we should have some consideration with respect to the rates charged on the goods which we ship out, particularly our basic commodity, grain.
In addition to agriculture, the development of manufacturing in western Canada has been very seriously hampered and delayed because of the high freight rates to which we have been subjected. Manufacturing in western Canada is going to be slow in developing as 94699-33
Railway Act
long as there is discrimination in freight rates against us to the extent that there has been in the past and to the extent that I believe there will be under the bill now before us. So far as some degree of equalization is brought about by this legislation, both agriculture and the other industries of the west will benefit. However, I am very much afraid that the amount of benefit is not going to be very appreciable.
The provision of a subsidy to the railroads to help to cut the cost of carrying goods over the unproductive land bridge between Sudbury and Fort William has the full support, I believe, of everybody west of the great lakes. However, the total effect of that move so far as our rates are concerned is going to be almost negligible. It is a good move and we support it, but we do not expect any wonders from it. I doubt whether the general public will feel any real or important effect from the provision of this subsidy. There are so many exceptions to the general principle of equalization provided for in the bill that I do not think the whole thing is going to amount to a great deal. In particular, the exception with respect to transcontinental rates is not going to improve our position in Alberta a great deal.
I hope I am wrong but I really cannot see that the changes which are going to be made will help us greatly. We in Alberta, as I think everyone knows, are at the very apex of the freight rate structure. We pay more than anybody else in Canada. We have agitated for many years for the application in Canada of the decision in what is known in the United States as the Spokane freight rates case, namely, that a higher rate cannot be charged for a haul to an intermediate point than the rate charged for the whole distance. In Calgary, for example, we have to pay up to twice as much to bring a carload of goods from Toronto as it costs to carry the same carload of goods from Toronto to Vancouver. The commission recognized the injustice of this to a certain extent and recommended that the rate to an intermediate point should not be more than one-third greater than the through rate. The bill of course will bring this recommendation into effect through section 7. This is an improvement which I think everyone will recognize but it still does not remove the basic inequity and the disabilities under which the economy of Alberta has had to operate in the past and under which it will have to operate in the future. I believe we should go the whole way in this matter and apply the so-called Spokane formula in Canada, particularly as far as the Canadian west is concerned.

Railway Act


Mr. G. M. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted, I should like to say that I am very much in favour of the principle of the bill. It is something to which we have long been looking forward in our part of the northwest. I do not suppose any part of Canada suffers from greater injustice as a result of inequality of freight rates than the country north of Edmonton and within the boundaries of British Columbia. The decision to introduce legislation to subsidize the lines north of the great lakes is a very wise one. I hope that as the bill goes forward provision will be made therein for the cheap transportation of settlers' effects, livestock and all those things which will make for further settlement of the west, and more particularly in the Peace river country and the country north of Edmonton which I have mentioned.
The situation there from the standpoint of freight rate inequality has been bad for the past twenty years-yes, longer than twenty years. The Alberta and British Columbia Railway was constructed from Edmonton, and under its charter the railway was supposed to be built from Edmonton to the British Columbia boundary and on into the province of British Columbia. In thirty years they have managed to get about twelve miles inside the 120th meridian. Therefore they have failed to live up to the purpose of granting the charter in the first place.
I do not intend to go into statistics this afternoon, but that railway received a very heavy subvention from the parliament of Canada, a large sum per mile being granted because it was the belief that it was a railway which would be of national importance and that it would give service to these new valleys within the province of British Columbia. They have extended their line on the north side of the Peace river to Hines Creek and there they stopped, like the little village which grew so far up the hill and then decided to stay there, come what might. In the interval the people of Canada have gone in far to the west of these termini and have established settlements. Production is now going on of wheat, livestock and all the various commodities that that country grows so well. Trucks are hauling grain this afternoon as much as one hundred miles to the elevators at the end of steel, both at Hines Creek on the one side in Alberta and to Dawson Creek on the south side of the Peace river in British Columbia. As far as transportation is concerned in that great area, it has been largely left to the trucks from the points that I have mentioned; and it is surprising how well the motor trucks are doing, carrying freight not only for the farmers and settlers far removed from the railhead, but going on north into the Yukon and Alaska,
[Mr. Harkness.l
sometimes as far as fifteen hundred miles, to and fro, carrying the commerce of the country. That is the situation in one part of my riding.
In the other part north of Prince George where a railway was planned-the government of British Columbia as far back as 1912 promised that a railway would be built, a Pacific coast outlet from the Peace river valley-nothing has happened beyond Prince George in the way of making good that promise. Yet that great country has been widely settled. Roads have been built, as have schools and hospitals. Villages have grown up. It is not to the credit of the heads of the transportation systems of our country that there has been a failure to extend the lines of steel into those valleys. There are not only agricultural resources available, but there are also large resources of lumber. Lumber is being hauled today and shipped to the Atlantic seaboard from that country. It is being carried by truck many miles over the highways to the railheads. Coal is a product of the country as well as oil and natural gas. We therefore have a foundation for a large and prosperous settlement. This region began to pour its wealth into the Ottawa valley and into Montreal in 1793 during the period of fur trading.
To get back to the subsidy on lines north of the great lakes, that is something that is of interest to every manufacturer in eastern Canada. Every time I travel to this eastern country I meet freight cars loaded with farm machinery, such as tractors and combines going from Brantford, Toronto, Woodstock, London and these other industrial points into the western country and certainly up into the country which I represent. I can recall the date of the formation of the Crowsnest pass agreement as to rates. At that time the railway moguls of this land-and they were men of great vision, great energy and fearless in their desire to throw new lines of rail into new valleys-believed that when they had negotiated the Crowsnest pass agreement they had done a great service not only for themselves but for the country; and I believe that to be the case. The government of the day was anxious to see the development of these valleys out in the west. These men who represented the towns and cities of western Ontario were interested in building up the industrial success of Ontario. Massey-Harris, Cockshutt, Gould, Shaply and Muir, and other companies of that day were encouraged to extend credit and to send their products out into the western land. As I say, the Crowsnest pass agreement was an instrument of great value both to the west and to the east; it no doubt helped to tie this country together in bonds of good will.

May I say that when the Crowsnest pass agreement was drawn up provision was made therein for a large subsidy to the railway which was to be constructed in the Crowsnest pass. Provision was made for the granting of farm lands and timber lands, of coal in the Kootenay country, and of other lands containing oil and gas. It is within the memory of men who are here today that certain eastern gentlemen profited greatly from the development-I will not say exploitation-of the natural resources of that part of southern British Columbia. When we hear there is any desire to withdraw this agreement or to cancel it, we should bear in mind the large contribution which the people of Canada have already made for the institution of that agreement and for the carrying out of it for more than a half century. In the construction of all these railways, the government of Canada contributed substantial grants either of land or money, or of both, so that our new west could be developed.
I ask today that the government of Canada continue that wise policy which has paid off so well to the country in the past. I hope these lines that I ask for will be extended from Hines Creek into the coal measures at Hudson's Hope, B.C., and connect up with Prince George and with the Canadian National Railways at that point.
In referring to that extension as a peacetime project, I would bring to mind today that it is essential that the northwestern country should enjoy the best of military defence and that the construction of highways, railways, airways and communications up there would be valuable to us today and to our allies not as a peacetime enterprise alone but also as an enterprise for the defence of Canada and our allies on this North American continent. I therefore hope that this bill may be carried through and that with it may come about a solution of the problems which have so long caused dissatisfaction not only in my own riding but throughout British Columbia. Our natural market place there is at Vancouver, the great seaport on the Pacific, or alternatively Prince Rupert, a sister seaport; but we are compelled now to send our produce back into the interior of Canada five hundred miles, have it return from there and proceed on down to Pacific tidewater. Can you imagine anyone shipping goods from Ottawa, let us say, to the great city of Quebec, but before sending the merchandise on directly to Quebec detouring these carloads down to Windsor, Ontario, and then shipping them back? It is a wholly unscientific thing, and certainly is a costly thing to do. It places great hardship upon our people, adding to the cost of hauling 84690-331
Railway Act
every bushel of grain out of that country, thereby adding to the cost of living and putting an extra burden upon the householder. I hope that we may work out, and that this bill will be the first step in doing so, a policy for the sensible solution of the freight rate problems of the Peace river country. If this parliament can work out a system of equalized freight rates which will please all parts of Canada, then it will indeed have accomplished the greatest work any parliament could do, because I do not think there is any other thing which touches so many of us as does the cost of hauling commodities from here to there. I am sure that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is a man who possesses the statesmanship and ability to direct through this house this measure which is now before us; and if it does what I hope it will do, it will bring credit to him and will be a blessing-as the poet said of the quality of mercy-both to "him that gives and him that takes".


John George Diefenbaker: At
this time in the debate, Mr. Speaker, there are few new features that remain to be discussed. But I do join in the hope expressed by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) in his concluding remarks that this legislation, providing as it does a blueprint to the board, will be implemented in order to remove inequities in the freight rate structure that have proven so detrimental for the prairie provinces and the maritimes. The prairies and the maritimes have been in a similar position. I speak particularly for the prairies, where the dice have been loaded against the diversification of industry. Discriminatory freight rates, intensified by reason of the horizontal increases during the last few years, have actually had the effect of denying the prairie provinces the opportunity of becoming diversified in industry.
I believe this question was well summarized by the Alberta government in one of its submissions, wherein it is stated:
The railways would be compelled to set rates in such a way as not to discourage the establishment of secondary industries near primary production points. Alberta claims the present rates set up discourage this type of industry in the province, particularly with reference to livestock processing.
In Saskatchewan, suffering as we have from discriminatory freight rates, we cannot hope at any time to have established in our province those industries that are particularly fitted for establishment there by reason of the presence of the raw products.

Railway Act
The purpose of this bill, as its contents indicate, is a fine one. I believe the whole purpose may be summarized by a rereading of section 332A wherein it is stated:
It is hereby declared to be the national freight rates policy that, subject to the exceptions specified in subsection four, every railway company shall, so far as is reasonably possible, in respect of all freight traffic of the same description, and carried on or upon the like kind of cars or conveyances, passing over all lines or routes of the company in Canada, charge tolls to all persons at the same rate, whether by weight, mileage or otherwise.
That is a fine principle. But by the time one reads subsection 4 it has been watered down to such an extent that it amounts to little more than a declaration of pious purpose. It gives hope. It promises the removal of discrimination, and then by provisos it disappoints the hopes that are raised by the first paragraph. Naturally, we on the prairies desire a continuation in perpetuity of the Crowsnest rates, and the maritimes have the right to the maintenance of the provisions of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. The other provisos have the effect of emasculating the great principle that is set forth as the purpose of the bill. The minister did not set any target date as to when the work of redrawing the freight tariffs would be completed. For a period of three years now the board has been operating under order in council of April 7, 1948, which was declaratory of much the same principle. As yet we have seen nothing to indicate that the board has done anything to remove the existent discrimination against the prairies and the maritimes.
The principle declared is a good one, but we should have the assurance of the minister that it is going to be more than that. We should have the assurance that at the earliest possible date-I do not mean five or ten years hence-the board will carry out the principle enunciated. I believe we should have the views of the minister as to the directions he intends to give the board concerning the time within which this work is to be completed. Otherwise, it may be nothing but a declaration in a statute, and the implementation may or may not take place within our lifetime.
To remove the discrimination that now exists against the western provinces, $7 million is to be granted as a subsidy. This is to cover the cost of maintaining the bridge between eastern and western Canada. If that $7 million goes into the general fund of the railways it certainly will not have the result it would have if it were applied directly to the accounts of the respective railways for the purpose of reducing the cost of transportation to the west. A principle enunciated in a statute if not carried into effect, however, will do little to remove the discrimination which exists.

I should like to make a passing reference to the discrimination that denies full use of the Hudson Bay railway. For many years the dangers of transportation through Hudson bay were put forward as a reason for not using that system. My own maternal ancestors were able to come through there 140 years ago with the Selkirk settlers and the Hudson's Bay Company has been able to use that route for more than two hundred years. While some 7 million bushels of grain were shipped through Hudson bay this year, that represents a small part of the potentialities of that port, providing proper encouragement is given the use of the port. The discriminatory rates that now exist, and to which reference was made by an hon. member earlier in the debate, need to be removed.
There can be no question at all in any part of the country as to the value of transportation, and as to the need of transportation. The discussion regarding the marketing of the western wheat crop this afternoon indicates how important the matter of transportation is to the prairie provinces. Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the serious situation in the prairie provinces which indicates how important the transportation problem is. We had great hopes this fall of one of the largest crops in all history. Climatic conditions made it difficult to harvest, and even now in some parts of the province 40 per cent or more of the crop is not harvested. But in these areas where harvesting has taken place, many areas are being denied their fair and proportionate share of the available pool of freight cars.
This afternoon the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) made a statement and was most optimistic as to the situation. While he spoke a letter was delivered to me in the chamber, in which the situation at Hawarden, Saskatchewan, was set forth in detail. In that area, where crop conditions were particularly good, the letter reports that until a week ago only 13 freight cars had been made available. Millions of bushels of wheat, on the prairies, wheat that could be milled into flour, is lying out, and no storage or transportation facilities are available.
Early in September, after Mr. Milner was appointed to the position of controller, he gave a most optimistic statement. He said in effect that everything would turn out all right; that there were the necessary freight cars and the transportation facilities available. And since then, week by week, in place of delivery of freight cars the western farmer has had optimistic statistics substituted.
In tracing the record, which I have before me, I find first the statement of Mr. Milner

which was reported in the Western Producer of September 20. In this statement he is reported thus:
"We have the transportation to handle grain both by rail and on the lakes," he stated.
Mr. Milner agreed that up to now availability of lake boats had been a matter which caused some concern, but he believed there would be an ample number of boats on hand when they were needed.
He noted that a number of lake boats now were carrying ore but said ore transportation usually ended about November 10 due to cold weather which made the handling of ore extremely difficult, if not impossible.
For two months prior to that date the general attitude of those in charge of transportation for the prospective wheat crop was that all would be well. It was contended that there was no problem. A controller was appointed, finally, and he made what the Western Producer described in an editorial on September 20 a most optimistic statement:
The federal transport controller, Roy Milner, has given in a press interview a rather surprisingly optimistic view of the problems which confront him in his new job. It will not, he says, be nearly as difficult as originally anticipated. "We have," he went on, "the transportation to handle the shipment of the grain both by rail and on the lakes." Admitting that there were still a few kinks to be ironed out he indicated that the lateness of the season had provided time for arranging a well organized movement of the crop. He did not look for any acute bottleneck developing. He also agreed that there were ample box cars in the west for the present.
That was on September 20. We have heard nothing since that indicates that the optimism in that statement was borne out by subsequent events. There was an editorial in the Western Producer of September 27, pointing out the serious situation in the west. It is entitled "Box Cars", and it reads as follows:
Quite lively by this time Roy Milner, the transport controller, has had second thoughts about the highly optimistic interview on the movement of the crop which he gave only a week ago. Certainly every authoritative report on prevailing conditions since that time seems to contradict it. As far as can be judged the problem extends all the way from the farm to the country elevator, to the railroad box car, to the terminals, to lake shipping, on to ocean shipping and even, it is stated, to the storage capacity of overseas customers. Every passing day only serves to underline the magnitude of the task that lies ahead. Far from being exaggerated it seems rather that its scope and ramifications have not yet been fully apprehended.
There was no effective action up to October 11. Farmers found themselves in the position of having their grain threshed but being unable to move it, and having no storage facilities. Many elevators were plugged with wheat that was left over from last year, some part of it unmarketable for flour. The Manitoba pool president in a radio address which was reported on October 11 said:
We are greatly concerned about many of our elevators on Canadian Pacific Railway lines, because
Railway Act
many of those points are not getting as good car service as the average point on the Canadian National Railway lines. When Mr. Roy Milner was appointed transport controller, I immediately advised him that Manitoba pool elevators would lend him every support to facilitate his onerous duties.
Wheat has continued since to pile up on the farms, indicating the importance of transportation to the prairie provinces. On October 18 the following facts were set out in an article in the Western Producer, entitled "Box car supply lags far behind deliveries." It says that deliveries on the prairies were running on high. Then the article goes on:
According to figures released by the Saskatchewan wheat pool last Saturday, pool facilities in Saskatchewan were plugged at 365 points. Of this number 255 points were on the C.P.R. lines and 110 points were on C.N.R. lines.
That was on October 18. The situation was getting worse all the time and in place of effective action being taken another optimistic statement was issued by the minister. Finally on October 25, according to the Western Producer:
The Saskatchewan wheat pool last Friday wired to Trade Minister C. D. Howe advising him that the pool had several hundred elevators plugged, and that almost without exception, every elevator in the system had milling grades available in carload loads, ready for immediate shipment.
The pool wire advised Mr. Howe that there were millions of bushels of millable wheat in Saskatchewan, . . .
The wire concluded with this statement:
Send us box cars and we'll send the wheat.
This was an answer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce who in reply to a question by myself last week said in effect: We cannot get enough millable wheat. The pools said: All that is required to get it out is the necessary box cars. This just indicates how the situation was worsening.
By the end of the week between 500 and 600 pool elevators were plugged.
This indicates an increase of over a hundred elevators during the week that had become plugged with wheat. The statement goes on to say:
Of 528 pool elevators plugged by October 18, 334 of these points were on C.P.R. lines and 194 were on C.N.R. lines.
There is the transportation situation in the west. Some days ago the minister gave an optimistic statement. He made another one today. While optimistic statements are being turned out, the situation on the prairies is worsening to a calamitous extent. I make this plea. In place of the rosy statements, let us have a full and complete analysis of the box car situation in western Canada; for I say to you, sir, while parliament has been sitting during the last three weeks, the situation has become worse and worse, and

Railway Act
farmers in large areas of Saskatchewan are calling upon parliament to do something in order to meet the transportation crisis that faces them. It is a serious matter. Tens of millions of bushels are in danger. I am not speaking about the wheat and other crops that are under snow; the government is not responsible for that. But I am speaking about the tens of millions of bushels the farmers have that are deteriorating in grade as a result of there being no available storage.
In place of optimistic statements, which began last June when it was first realized that a large crop might be expected, even now, late as it is, action must be taken of a drastic and definite nature. If the Department of Trade and Commerce will give support to the controller, and if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) will lend his prestige, to which reference was made by the hon. member who preceded me in the debate, and put his weight behind it, I am sure something can be accomplished. Because if something drastic is not done then I am rueful of the future of considerable areas of the province of Saskatchewan.
Farmers are asking for action; they are calling for it. There is no member in the house from the prairie provinces who has not received many letters asking that something be done. It is true that storage difficulties in some localities may have been intensified when the quota was removed in certain areas. When wheat came in from thirty or forty miles away, into elevators that were empty, the local farmers who had not threshed at that time found themselves in a position where, when finally they did thresh, or when the combining was done, there was no available space in the elevators.
There has been too little action-and too much tinkering. The farmers in Saskatchewan are asking a mobilization of effort. The power to do so is available. The controller has exceedingly wide powers. There is a crisis and, according to the statistics I have read to the house, that crisis is becoming worse instead of better, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce would have had the house believe in his statement this afternoon.
The figures showing the number of elevators that were full, given for the week of October 12, had increased on October 25. No relief has been given in many of the areas affected in the last month. For that reason transportation is of such importance to the farmers on the prairies that I make this appeal-not an appeal for statistics that march in optimistic array but for some action on the part of parliament. Let us have action on the part of the Department of Transport- for the farmers who are asking for action.

I know every member in the house, no matter on which side he may be, realizes the seriousness of the situation.
There is only one thing to do, and that is to act now. It is late; great damage, irreparable damage, has been done. But the crisis continues and intensifies, and I do ask that something drastic and definite be done immediately. Mr. Milner has said in effect: We have lots of box cars. Well, where are those box cars? They are certainly not on the prairies. In August he said in effect: There is nothing to fear; we have the necessary facilities and transportation. We have every transportation facility available.
September, October-we now approach November; and today the minister said in effect: "I am not going to say that we are not going to give consideration to the advancing of money to the farmers for their crops in storage." If this matter had been faced in July or in June, we would not have the present situation. I brought it up in June, and the minister contended that all would be well. I pointed out then that there were a hundred millions of bushels of last year's crop in storage at terminals and1 in the prairies.
The transport controller was appointed too late. But even after his appointment, had he acted, with the absolute power he possesses, the situation would be different from what it is. We have to deal with present conditions. I ask the government, with all the power I have at my disposal, to do something. This transportation tie-up in the west, this bottleneck, is going to cause tens of millions of dollars of loss to western farmers. That loss could have been prevented had there been a forthright policy on transportation.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Railway Act
with respect to that situation and to the fact that during this two-year period they are denied the normal processes of collective bargaining which the commissioners say is the way to deal with these matters.
The fact of the matter is that by virtue of Bill No. 1 of August, 1950, and the Kellock award which was based on that bill an increase of seven cents per hour was given to the employees. When Mr. Justice Kellock made his report he made it quite clear that in order to maintain the cost of living and wage relationship of these employees with what it was in June, 1948, he should have given them 10-2 cents per hour. But Bill No. 1 fixed a ceiling on that increase of 7 cents an hour. In other words he made it clear that at that time railway employees were already 3-2 cents an hour short of what they should have had just to maintain their standard of living of June, 1948.
It takes only a little bit of simple arithmetic to project the reasoning of Mr. Justice Kellock to the present time. When you take today's cost of living and compare it with what it was in June, 1948, as Mr. Justice Kellock did as between September 1, 1950, and June, 1948, you come to the realization that these employees are now 16-9 cents an hour behind rather than just the 3 -2 cents per hour they were behind when Mr. Justice Kellock made his award in 1950.
The employees of the railways realize that they are employed by two separate companies, one privately owned and the other owned by the government. They realize that normally they have to deal with those companies in connection with these matters, but many of them feel strongly that in this case their problem is to a large extent the responsibility of parliament and of the government because of the wage-freezing law which so far as their wages are concerned is still in effect. That is the reason why many resolutions are coming in from railway lodges across the country asking for a cost of living bonus or some other adjustment in their wages. In some cases they call upon the government to introduce legislation relaxing the provisions of Bill No. 1 of last fall so that they can at least maintain the position that was awarded to them as a result of Mr. Justice Kellock's report, which he made in December, 1950.
This is a matter of extreme importance. I welcome this expression by the Turgeon commission to the effect that from the employee-employer relationship standpoint it is best that the collective bargaining process continue. My point is that that process is being interfered with at the present time. I feel that the employees are right in expressing the view

that it is the responsibility of the government to look at their situation and see if something cannot be done to bridge the gap between what their purchasing power was in June, 1948, and what it is today. There is a difference of 16-9 cents an hour by virtue of a bill introduced by the government and passed by this parliament in August, 1950, and I support the view of the employees that it is the responsibility of the government to rectify that situation.
I shall not take more time of the house at this juncture to deal with these matters. But I did want to support the appeal for action with regard to moving the crop from the west and to bring these other matters to the attention of the government.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, following up the questions raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with regard to the $7 million payment, I suggest to the minister that he relate this payment to the gross incomes of the two railroads. I have before me the gross revenue of the Canadian National for 1949 which is given as $500 million, and I do not suppose the Canadian Pacific would be much less. I think it would be a matter of great interest if the $7 million was related to those gross totals.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief but I did want to say something about the transportation bottleneck that exists at the moment. In principle I think this subsidy of $7 million to the railroads to cover the dead haul across northern Ontario is all to the good, but like the previous two or three speakers I am dubious as to whether it will bring about any great improvement in rates.
The point I wanted to deal with particularly was this terrific bottleneck existing in the prairie provinces, the effect of which is being felt much more in Saskatchewan than in Manitoba or Alberta. It is a very serious problem for all three provinces. As reported in the press, when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) was passing through Winnipeg early in August he stated that there would be no box car problem at all, that the situation was well in hand and that satisfactory arrangements had been made for handling the great crop that was in prospect. I remember reading the statement and having some doubts about it, but nevertheless many farmers were caught off their guard. They thought everything was fine so far as the handling of the great crop then in prospect was concerned.
As has been stated already, I do not think the transport controller was appointed soon

enough. He should have been appointed earlier in the year and given a chance to prepare his program for the transportation of the crop. I think he has been handicapped. Time has passed and the situation has become progressively and rapidly worse since the statement made by the minister. A few weeks ago a joint statement was issued by the transport controller and the chairman of the Canadian wheat board about the condition of the grain in the prairie provinces. A directive for the movement of that grain was issued pointing out that they could only attempt the moving of millable grain, and that therefore they would not touch points where there was low grade grain. The point was made that in the province of Manitoba there was little or no millable grain handled.
The following evening, after the head of the Manitoba pool, Mr. Parker, had made a survey of the elevators of the province, he went on the air and contradicted the statement made by the transport controller and the chairman of the wheat board. He pointed out the exact numbers of millions of bushels of millable wheat that were in storage. He gave the amount by elevators and the location of the elevators in the province of Manitoba. Therefore the whole matter has become most confusing to the farmers. The weather has been very bad, although we cannot blame the officials for that. We have had probably one of the worst seasons in forty or fifty years. When we have tried to raise this question on orders of the day and in other debates I do not think we have received a satisfactory answer from the ministers responsible. It is true that it is chiefly a matter for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who is not responsible for the measure before us now.
We have been given the runaround to some extent. It is a very bad economic set-up for many farmers in the prairie provinces. The weather is still bad in some parts and in many instances the grain that has been harvested has been piled in the fields. That is not so bad for wheat and coarse grains but it is no good for flax. In the last newspaper I received from my district it is pointed out that on the Estevan line every elevator is plugged solid from Napinka, Manitoba, to Oxbow, Saskatchewan. In that area there is a lot of flax grown and you cannot harvest flax and leave it out in the open without terrific loss. It has to be stored somewhere. I want to endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and other members from the prairies, namely, that even at this late date the minister should try to bring about a more effective policy and have the transport controller take more effective
Railway Act
steps for the handling of the grain. I was not satisfied with the answer given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce this afternoon. I think these people are entitled to much more authentic information and more action than has been the case. I hope the minister will be able to bring that about.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) :: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the
house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the three last
hon. gentlemen who have just made speeches will pardon me if I do not follow them in their observations and in the complaints and grievances which they have raised, because I say to them respectively that, in so far as the last part of the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the last part of the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), and the whole of the remarks of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) are concerned, they are, with respect, entirely out of order. I submit that this bill is not the place to discuss these grievances. I presume there will be an opportunity to do so from time to time. There is the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and there will be other opportunities when these very important questions can be debated. It is because of their importance that I did not rise on a point of order to interrupt the hon. gentlemen.
The matter before the house is Bill No. 12, an act to amend the Railway Act. It, the act to amend the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, and the act to amend the Maritime Freight Rates Act are bills of the utmost importance and bills which seek to implement the recommendations of the royal commission. The debate that has taken place on the first of these measures has been a good one, and I am sure that I reflect the feelings of the members of this house when I say that a contribution has been made by those who have spoken thus far. I want to express my thanks to those who have taken part. I believe that every member who has done so has contributed something to the debate.
I want to single out especially three members. First of all I want to refer to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). Here I pause to say that it is refreshing that from time to time a member in the opposition should rise and give to a bill such as this one almost unqualified support. After all, there are bound to be differences of opinion on

Railway Act
legislation. I know too that, while this legislation does not meet fully the wishes of the hon. member for Peace River, nevertheless he co-operated and made a speech which I think it was extremely refreshing to hear, and I thank him for it.
I also want to single out one of my colleagues on this side of the house, the junior member for Halifax.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The senior member.


Lionel Chevrier: The senior member for
Halifax (Mr. Dickey). I do not know why I said "junior". Perhaps it is because of his appearance, but in any event he is the senior member. I single him out because I think that he has dealt with the meat of the bill and certainly has expressed my feelings on it which I will add to, if I can, as the debate progresses.
I also want to make special reference to the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). I think his speech was an objective one. I do not think he had in his mind any intention of raising points other than those which he thought should be made in the debate, and for his objectiveness in that respect I think he should be commended. In the short time at my disposal it is impossible for me to deal with all the objections, complaints and points which were raised. However, I want to deal with most of them, and in doing so I feel I have to divide them under three heads because I think the objections raised to the legislation by certain of the members who have spoken can be segregated in three divisions. First, there are those dealing with the board of transport commissioners; next, those dealing with increases in freight rates, and finally those dealing with equalization and its relationship to the maritime provinces.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) made two points. He said that the board should be strengthened and he complained about the fact that the government had given no indication of its policy with reference to the other recommendations of the royal commission. His criticism of the board was a mild criticism. It was fair criticism, and if he will allow me I will deal with it now. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra-and he was joined by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well)-stated that the board was not sufficiently strong, that there was not adequate staff, and that the board should be strengthened. The government has moved to strengthen the board on two occasions. Following the illness of Colonel Cross after one of the hearings-I believe it was the twenty-one per cent case-the government acted by the appointment of Mr. Justice Archibald.

Later on it added to the board Mr. Howard Chase and Mr. Patterson about whom we have heard a great deal. I think there can be no doubt that these three men added a great deal of strength to the membership of the board.
Let me pause here for a moment to say that there is no doubt in the world that when an increase in freight rates comes, no matter whence it comes, there is bound to be criticism. If the board of transport commissioners had resisted all along the line these applications for an increase in freight rates, probably in the minds of the public, and certainly in the minds of the members of the House of Commons, it would have been a good board and there would have been no suggestion of strengthening it. That is only natural. After all, we as individuals resent the fact that we have to pay more for our transportation just as we resent having to pay more for the other things that have added to the cost of living. I therefore say that the government has met that criticism by the addition of these three men and again recently by the appointment of John D. Kearney.
But before I come to that matter, let me say a word about Mr. Justice Archibald. I do not think that any member of the board had at heart more than he did the interest of the provinces. I do not think that any member of the board appreciated with greater sympathy and understood with greater accuracy the wishes and desires of the provinces. Notwithstanding that fact, during his tenure of office there was a series of increases in freight rates. The point is this. The board, on each occasion, was faced with a revenue case. The board met it on the basis of the evidence; and the board had no other alternative, having regard to the evidence which was placed before it, than to grant the increase. In fact, because it did not grant the increase fast enough and because it did not take into consideration the fact that there had been an increase in wage rates among railway workers, the Supreme Court of Canada overruled the board and said: You should have acted in a different manner earlier and therefore should have given to the railways that which they sought. It is easy to complain about the personnel of the board and its alleged weakness; but we all know that the board is a court of record, must deal with evidence, and must base its judgment upon the evidence placed before it.
The government has acted recently by the appointment of Mr. John D. Kearney and I hope that his appointment will add great strength to the board; in fact, I am positive that this will be the result. I agree with both hon. gentlemen in that the board

is lacking in expert staff. That is a fact. The board has not the required technical assistance. It has not the required traffic advisers that it should have, but I rose in this house more than two years ago and explained why that was so. The reasons are the same today as they were then, and are simply that traffic experts are almost impossible to find in this country. The railways have some. Certain of the governments of the various provinces succeeded in employing some but only quite recently. They are most difficult to get. There is no dearth of accountancy personnel on the board; but there is a dearth of traffic experts. 1 can assure the house that if they were available as easily as it is thought, the board unquestionably would have had them.
What did the royal commission have to say about the board of transport commissioners? The royal commission dealt at some length with some of the charges that had been made against the board, one of the main charges being that the board was not performing its duties and carrying out its responsibilities, and that its duties should be changed. The royal commission on transportation found that the board of transport commissioners had all the powers required under the Railway Act and that its duties should not be changed. It made some commendation of the board and it made some criticism of the board, but I am not going to go into that matter because the report is there to be read by hon. members of the house. But one of the main complaints is answered when the royal commission states that the duties of the board should not be changed. Neither does the commission recommend that its powers be broadened.
Then I come to the second complaint made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) in that he said that the government gives no indication of its policy with reference to the refinancing of the Canadian National Railways and the co-ordination of transportation facilities. I do not take that complaint too seriously, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the hon. member will not take me to task for that. But it must be remembered that the report of the royal commission on transportation was tabled on March 15 by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in this house and notice of the first bills-which were these bills or similar ones-appeared in Votes and Proceedings on June 12, 1951, less than three months after the report of the royal commission. It will thus be seen that the government moved fairly quickly in its policy concerning the first part of the report of the royal commission.
Railway Act
As to the other two matters, that of the financial structure of the Canadian National Railways, this is a fairly complicated matter and one which must be considered carefully, as is the other part of the report having to do with the co-ordination of transportation facilities. At that time the government knew that the case having to do with the operation of motor bus service was before the Supreme Court of Canada, and it was felt that no decision could be taken on either of those two matters until some greater opportunity outside the session was afforded to us to consider them. I think that was a logical conclusion to reach.
I now come to the speech of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. He asked, as did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), for some explanation about the rail link. He asked; What is the minister's suggestion for the basis of this section? What does the section mean? Who is to determine this? The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) also asked certain questions with reference to that matter. I have no intention of spelling out what the meaning of the section is. I will give what I think it means and then make a comment or two on it. As I understand it, section 18 (1) (a) of this bill means that the Canadian Pacific Railway is to receive the annual cost of maintaining 552 miles of trackage, subject to subsection 4 of the section, namely, if the total cost for both railways exceeds $7 million. Section 18 (1) (b) means that the Canadian National Railways is to receive the annual cost of maintaining 552 miles of trackage out of the total trackage involved of 985 miles, subject also to the provisions of subsection 4. Subsection 2 of section 18 means that the board is to determine what actual trackage is to be used. It would mean that it could fix the actual trackage to be included, such as main track, passing track, sidings, yards, etc. The board is to determine also the annual cost to each company for the actual trackage so determined, and for inclusion of the scope of payment.
As I indicated earlier, and I repeat now, this bill and section 18 as well contain our understanding of the recommendations of the commission in that chapter having to do with the link between the east and the west. The committee charged with drafting this legislation thought, and we agreed and it was our intention, that they should put into the legislation the main principles and the main recommendations contained in this report. It may be that there are parts of this legislation that still have to be reviewed. I have no doubt that there are details in connection

Railway Act
with this section that have to be clarified because the formula as given in that chapter is not a clear formula. Certainly, it is one that will have to be studied with care in the committee when we get to that stage. I hope that a section can be adopted which will meet the intention the members of the royal commission had when they wrote the chapter, and certainly the intention we had when we decided to put the recommendation into legislation.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said that the steps envisaged in this bill are inadequate to meet the position today, and that the subsidy is also quite inadequate. I do not blame him too much for taking that attitude, but I think we should see what the member said when this report was tabled and discussed on my estimates. I quote from his statement as it appears at page 1945 of Hansard for April 12, 1951.
X think that the members of the board, the Hon. W. F. A. Turgeon, Dr. H. F. Angus and Dr. H. A. Innis, did a very fine job indeed for Canada when they made this inquiry and wrote their report.
At page 1949, he said:
I want to say again that I believe the royal commission did a splendid job for Canada. The commission members are to be congratulated. The main recommendations of the report I believe are of such a nature that this house would be well advised to give early consideration to them, and to enacting legislation to bring into effect, as soon as we can, those that we feel are in the interests of Canada.
Now, that is exactly what we are doing. We are bringing into effect by way of legislation those recommendations which we feel are in the general interests of Canada.


Mr. Coldwell:: I do not want to withdraw anything that I said in that regard, but we have had an opportunity of studying this $7 million and I still think it is inadequate, though I believe the recommendation is a step in the right direction.


Lionel Chevrier: I want to point out, to
those in the house who always say it is good but it does not go far enough, that the $7 million was in the report. The hon. member knew about the subsidy when he read the report. It has not been changed from the time he read the report in March of this year until now, and all we are doing is putting the $7 million into this bill.


Major James William Coldwell: It depends upon how it is going to be used.


Lionel Chevrier: True, and I am trying to explain that the details of that should be worked out in the committee. I do not want to be facetious, but I believe I should point out that all those members who said a great

job had been done by the Turgeon commission, that these were excellent recommendations and should be carried into effect at the earliest possible moment, seem now to say -at least some of them-that this legislation does not go far enough; the subsidy is not enough; it does not do this or that. These are the same recommendations which existed in March of this year, and the legislation is the same with the exception of two sections that have been added. I do not want to pursue that matter any further.
Let me go on now with the other headings under which criticisms were made, one of which was the increase in freight rates. Many members criticized and deprecated the fact that there had been a series of increases of freight rates in Canada over the last several years. I can tell those hon. members that I did not like those increases any more than they did. I have already made the point: if the railways were able to make a case before the board, then why should they not be entitled to the increases? If the railways were able to prove that their costs had gone up, wages and costs of materials had risen, why should they not, under the Railway Act, be entitled to the increases?
In order that there may be no misapprehension about these increases, let us go into the history of them for a few minutes. I shall do it as briefly as I can. Generally speaking, within the last forty years railway rates may be divided into four periods. First, there was the period from 1903 to 1915, which may be called a period of gradual lowering of rates. Then there was the second period, that between 1916 and 1920, which may be characterized as one of substantial increases to meet war and post-war conditions. As a result of world war I the railways experienced greatly increased operating and maintenance costs which necessitated four general increases in freight rates. First, the 15 per cent case, which was the first increase in freight rates following world war I, was made in 1917. It followed an application by the railways to the board of transport commissioners consequent upon a 15 per cent increase in freight rates in the United States.
The next increase was known as the 25 per cent case. It was the second increase, and came about in 1918, and followed the McAdoo award in the United States. This increase-I ask the members to note this-was by direction of the cabinet to the board. There was no hearing, relatively speaking. The cabinet simply directed the board to increase freight rates in order to meet the position brought about by the McAdoo award.
Third, there was the 40 per cent case which came in 1920. It was made upon an

application to the board and after a hearing. It provided for a general increase of 40 per cent in eastern Canada and 35 per cent in western Canada. I add this, that those increases totalled together represent a 111 per cent increase in freight rates in Canada following world war I. There has been some complaint here about the present increases, but they certainly have not reached that stage.
The third period was from 1921 to 1940 and was one of continued decline from the peak of 1920. It was marked by a considerable increase in competition. Generally, the structure was modified downward in the following manner. First, in January of 1921 there was a reduction of 5 per cent from the 40 per cent increase in eastern territory mentioned earlier, and a 5 per cent reduction in the 35 per cent increase in western territory. In December, 1921, there was a further reduction of 10 per cent, bringing the 40 .per cent increase down to 25 per cent in eastern territory and 20 per cent in western territory. In 1922 certain reductions were directed on basic commodities such as grain and grain products and coal. Fourth, the mountain differential was further reduced to a factor of one and a quarter miles on the prairies equalling one mile on the Pacific coast. Fifth, in 1923 reductions were ordered in export rates on grain from western Canada to Pacific coast ports. Sixth, in 1925 the Crowsnest pass rates established in 1897 were incorporated into the Railway Act and made applicable only to grain, thereby creating within the Railway Act statutory rates which have since prevailed at the 1897 level. Seventh, in 1927 the Maritime Freight Rates Act was passed, which gave to the select territory a reduction of 20 per cent in the rates within and outward from the maritime territory.
A fourth period is that extending from 1941 to 1947, the period during which, because of the regulations of the wartime prices and trade board, freight rates were frozen in Canada. Hence, from 1920 to 1947 there were no increases in freight rates in Canada; on the contrary there were many decreases in commodity, competitive and special rates.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister did not refer to the fact that some benefits under the Crowsnest agreement were withdrawn in 1925.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend is quite right. Some benefits were withdrawn during a regime of the opposition; some were withdrawn following the war, but were restored by a government made up of members of the persuasion of this side of the house to the point where they have remained until this time.
Railway Act


Major James William Coldwell: Some were left out in 1925
under the government now in power.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I was going on to point out that the rates had been frozen until 1947. The house knows what has happened from 1947 until today. I need not go over that, but I do want to make this statement, that notwithstanding everything that has been said, we have in Canada the cheapest freight rates of any country in the world with perhaps one exception. It may interest the house to know that Canada has the cheapest transportation in the world with the exception I mentioned. The average revenue per ton mile is the lowest in the world with this one exception.


Mr. Fraser:: What country is the minister referring to?


Lionel Chevrier: It is the United States. The public pays for the transportation of its goods in Canada -97 cent per ton mile as compared with France, which is 2-30 cents; Germany 2-05 cents; Italy, 2-13 cents; Belgium, 2-11 cents; Australia, 2-47 cents; South Africa, 1-59 cents; Argentina, 1-94 cents and Great Britain, 2-34 cents. I simply wanted to put that statement on the record.


Mr. Green:: What is the United States figure?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not the figure, but it is lower than in Canada.
I now wish to make this point. The provinces did not complain so much about the increases. The provinces realized that if the railways were able to make out a case they would be entitled to increases. But what the provinces complained about was the inequality, geographically and climatically, that existed. They also complained about the fact that while these revenue cases were being heard the board was powerless to deal with the removal of the geographic or other difficulties which existed. The primary opposition of the provinces was a revival of the issues of inequalities, inequities, and anomalies under the freight rate structure which for the most part had been dormant following the investigation in 1927.
Then I have these submissions put to me: We want an undertaking that there shall be no further increases until this legislation is-enacted, and certainly no further horizontal: increases. The royal commission on transportation was asked by certain groups-I need not mention them; the reference can be found in the report-that the governor in council should be given power to direct the board to do thus and so, to direct the board to refuse to increase rates. The royal commission on transportation did not accept this and said it would not be a good thing because after all the board is a court of record charged

Railway Act
with the responsibility of hearing evidence; and if the evidence warrants the increases, be they horizontal or otherwise, it finds in accordance with that evidence. The board, stated the royal commission, should not be interfered with. The royal commission was unable to entertain that position.
That brings me to the last of the complaints, or to the position taken by certain members of the house, namely, equalization, and its relation to the maritime provinces. First of all, what is equalization? It is not an easy thing to define. The royal commission on transportation had some very divergent views put before them as to the meaning of equalization. Certainly when it had some difficulty in arriving at a definition of equalization I should be the last to attempt to define it. Perhaps the best definition that can be given of equalization is found in section 332A (1), which has already been read but which I am sure the house will permit me to read again:
It is hereby declared to be the national freight rates policy that, subject to the exceptions specified in subsection four, every railway company shall, so far as is reasonably possible, in respect of all freight traffic of the same description, and carried on or upon the like kind of cars or conveyances, passing over all lines or routes of the company in Canada, charge tolls to all persons at the same rate, whether by weight, mileage or otherwise.
That is therefore the best definition of equalization I can give at this time. Is equalization desirable? I think every hon. member would say that equalization is desirable if it is possible. That raises a third question:	Is equalization possible? Full
equalization is certainly not possible, after reading the section further and certainly after considering the report of the transport commissioners. Partial equalization is all that is being sought in this bill. Having dealt with that, it brings me to two questions which were put by certain of the maritime members. One question was: Will equalization increase freight rates in the maritime provinces? The other was: What will be the effect of this legislation upon the maritimes? Well, first I want to put on the record some of the documents that I think need to be put on at this time so the house will glean the intention that appears throughout these documents. The first document I want to quote from is P.C. 1487 which ordered the special investigation into the freight rate structure. It is dated April 7, 1948, and I read the last paragraph thereof only:
The committee, accordingly, advise that the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada be directed to undertake a general freight rates investigation along the lines indicated in the preceding paragraph subject to such special statutory provisions as affect freight rates.

I think it is clear from this that any investigation the board of transport commissioners is to conduct must of necessity be subject to the special statutory rates which exist at the time or which existed at the time the order in council was passed.
Next I come to the brief presented by the provincial premiers-and I ask maritime members to take particular note of what I am about to quote. This is a brief which the premiers of various provinces submitted to the federal cabinet on July 20, 1948, following an appeal which they made. I quote from the last part, which says:
This appeal having been lodged, two courses will hereafter be open to us.
(1) -
And I need not read that, because it is not appropriate. Then it continues:
The second course would be to ask again for a royal commission which could inquire into the whole problem and could be empowered to act not as an appeal court from the board but as a body which could review the principles of rate-making upon which the board's judgment is based. If such a commission were appointed, with suitable personnel and appropriate terms of reference, we should be prepared to agree to an adjournment of the hearing of the appeal pending the report of such royal commission. Of the two courses, we are definitely of the view that the latter is preferable, on two counts-first, that it is the only means whereby a satisfactory solution to the larger problem of establishing proper principles for equalization in rate-making can be found, and, second, that it will provide a means whereby the appeal to the governor in council may be quickly disposed of.
There is the brief of the provincial premiers, which states that a royal commission is the only means whereby a satisfactory solution to the larger problem of establishing proper principles for equalization in ratemaking can be found. Is that clear? Does that not indicate to the house what was in the minds of provincial premiers? Will any member dare rise in his place and say that the provinces did not ask for a uniform rate structure, that the provinces did not ask for equalization? There it is, in black and white.
Let me go further. The provinces in their reference left with the governor in council certain suggestions that would help the governor in council in coming to a conclusion as to whether or not a royal commission should be appointed. I quote from the suggestions as to the terms of reference in establishing the royal commission. They are these:
If it is desired to specify particular matters, the following, among others, might be included:
(a) the burden which the present freight rate structure imposes upon certain areas of Canada because of their geographic or economic positions, and how such burden should be alleviated.

That was contained in the terms of reference of the royal commission.
The whole problem of competitive freight rates including the right of the railways to establish such rates, the manner of making such rates effective, and the extent of the authority and control which is or should be exercised by the board of transport commissioners with respect to such rates.
There is a clause dealing with that in the royal commission report, and there is a section dealing with it in this legislation. 'Next:
The general level of freight rates in eastern Canada and in western Canada respectively, including the reasons, if any, for the maintenance of differences in such rates or rate levels.
That, too, is dealt with by the commission, and dealt with in this bill. Then:
The long and short haul principle of rate-making in the Canadian freight rate structure, particularly as it relates to transcontinental traffic, and an examination of the comparable situation legislative and administrative in the United States of America, and the feasibility and advisability of the adoption in Canada of a comparable principle.
I could go on and quote additional suggestions by the provinces, which were adopted. But let me stop there, because those four in themselves, put together add up to what? They add up to a uniform rate structure for Canada. That is what the provinces asked for. And now how can anyone rise in his place and say the provinces did not ask for equalization of freight rates?
I go on now from that, and wish to give further assurance of the intention of the government in so far as statutory freight rates are concerned.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Is there any indication in the report of the royal commission that that evidence was before them? Is there anything in the report itself?


Lionel Chevrier: I shall go on to read from the report where it deals with that very matter. At page 126 of the report of the royal commission on transportation, the chapter dealing with equalization, I would refer particularly to paragraph 8, where it says:
8. The board has requested the railways to submit to them the railways' proposals for equalization of freight rates throughout Canada subject to statutory prohibitions contained in section 325 of the Railway Act and in the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
That, to me, is an indication that the royal commission were recognizing the fact that an investigation into the freight rate structure was to be made by the board of transport commissioners, and that that investigation should be subject to statutory rights. Again at page 236, dealing with suggestion No. 9 in the chapter referring to the Maritime Freight Rates Act, I would direct something to the attention of the house. Suggestion No. 9 was
Railway Act
that the Maritime Freight Rates Act be amended in order to permit complete equalization. This is what the royal commission has to say with reference to that:
The order in council calling for this investigation, P.C. 1487, was issued in April 1948, eight months before this commission was appointed. One of its purposes is to secure the equalization of freight rates, but it expressly excludes from this equalization such rates as are now governed by statute. These are the Crowsnest Pass rates and the rates established under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Shortly after order in council P.C. 1487 was issued the question of possible amendments to legislation in order to make equalization more effective was dealt with between the government and the board. Under these circumstances it is best to leave matters as they stand and no recommendation by this commission appears to be called for.
On the following page, under the heading of "recommendations", no recommendations are made with respect to amendments to the Maritime Freight Rates Act, save those two small amendments to carry into law that which exists in practice today. Then, last but not least, is section 332A (4) of the bill which excludes from the equalization principle the Maritime Freight Rates Act. So that all along the line the intention of the government (1) with reference to the freight rates investigation, (2) upon recommendations made by the provinces, (3) in the report of the royal commission and (4) in the legislation, is to guard the principle laid down in the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
I wish to,make this additional point, which apparently the house has not considered. It is that this legislation and the investigation under P.C. 1487 are two entirely different things. Some attempt has been made by hon. members to associate one with the other, and to say that if Bill No. 12 passes we will be in difficulties, in so far as the investigation is concerned, because the investigation will be made under this legislation. There could be no greater inaccuracy than that statement. The investigation under P.C. 1487 was ordered eight months before the royal commission was appointed, and this investigation has to do with a plan of equalization.
That brings me to this question: will equalization increase the rates? Well, how can anyone with his wits about him answer a question of that nature? Equalization in the United States of America, by the interstate commerce commission, took twelve years. Equalization by the board of transport commissioners will certainly take several years. How long it will take, I do not know. The plan submitted by the railways the other day is not a final plan. It has nothing to do with the rates that will exist in this country after the plan has been approved. What that plan

Railway Act
will be, I do not know, but I know that the investigation under P.C. 1487 cannot take place until there has been a complete study and investigation of the freight rate structure by the board.
How can anyone say that the rates which were filed with the board by the railways are the result of that investigation? No one can say that because the completion of this plan will take several years. It may take two years; it may take three years; it may take five years. Only after the plan is completed can it be said that the rates will be increased, decreased or otherwise altered.


Mr. Higgins:: Is it fair to say that nobody can say these rates will not be increased?


Lionel Chevrier: I can state that no one can say the plans which have been filed will be the plans of rates which the board will approve after this legislation goes into effect. The hon. member for Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) quoted Rand Matheson. Although I thought he was out of order at the time, I did not press the matter. I presume if I read a statement by the same person at this time he will not contend that I am out of order. I quote from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of October 21, 1951, which is more recent than the statement quoted by the hon. member. Mr. Matheson had this to say:
Moncton, N.B.. Oct. 24-(CP)-The maritime freight rate structure will not be adversely affected by any freight rate equalization proposal, Rand Matheson, spokesman for the maritime transportation commission, said tonight.
He said the statement by transport minister Chevrier in the House of Commons respecting proposed exception of the Maritime Freight Rates Act from dominion-wide freight rate equalization was received here as a favourable indication.


Mr. Nowlan:: When I was reading the statement the other day the minister asked me to read the rest of the statement, so I would ask him now to read the rest of the statement which makes reference to a proposed amendment.


Lionel Chevrier: The statement continues:
The maritime act has recently been the subject of conflicting interpretations in relation to freight rate equalization proposals, but Mr. Chevrier's statement yesterday cleared the air at least for the time being, he said. That the maritime freight rate structure will not be greatly affected by any equalization proposal should be made abundantly clear in any proposed amendment, he added.
I say that that has been made abundantly clear, not only in the amendment but in the briefs from the premiers, in P.C. 1487, in this legislation and in the report of the royal commission on transportation. Hon. members go a step further and ask: Will it mean an increase? Will it mean a decrease? I am not able to say, and no one is able to say. No one but the most unwise would attempt to answer

that type of question. I am sure that hon. members who asked the questions feel that in going as far as I have gone I have gone about the limit anyone could be expected to go.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister have any objection to dealing with the statement contained on page 124 of the report, in the chapter on equalization, reading as follows:
The maritime provinces said that they did not "subscribe to or support so-called equalization of freight rates" and stated "rate equalization is impossible of achievement."


Lionel Chevrier: I have not that particular paragraph before me and my eye did not catch it as quickly as did my hon. friend, but I know what it is. All I can say with reference to that is that the hon. member is only carrying out the procedure adopted by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) the other evening when he quoted at great length from various parts of the report in an effort to show that they were contradictory to each other. I am not going to take the time to deal with that, but dealing with the question asked by the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) all I can say is that this royal commission was asked for by the provinces. The provinces got the royal commission. The royal commission heard evidence from the various provinces and came to the conclusion that not only was equalization desirable, it was demanded by the people. In other words, they came to the conclusion that public opinion demanded equalization. I can only answer my hon. friend's question by saying that. Surely there can be no doubt that the conclusions of the royal commission with regard to equalization, whether they were based on the demands of every individual province or not, were certainly conclusions that we are trying to put into effect in this bill.
If I may go on from there, I assert that this legislation, instead of having disastrous results upon the maritime provinces, will have two distinct advantages. First, the maritime provinces will receive the benefits of the transcontinental rates being applied to intermediate points. Hon. members know what the transcontinental rate is with reference to various classes of rates. By virtue of this legislation the transcontinental rate to intermediate points will not be more than one-third greater than the through rate. Any goods moving from the maritime provinces to western Canada will have the benefit of that application of the transcontinental rates to intermediate points. Another benefit that will accrue to the maritime provinces arises out of the subsidy of $7 million. I hope this

subsidy will be reflected in the general freight rate structure between the east and the west, that is in class and commodity rates. It will also be of direct benefit to the maritime provinces.
I would like to conclude what I am afraid have been rather lengthy remarks with two statements. First I want to answer the statement that the government is not dealing equitably with this whole situation, that the government has been lax. I must say that charge was not pressed too strongly. Let me put on the record what this government and other governments of the same political persuasion-I apologize for introducing a political note but I think I must say this in answer to the criticisms that have been offered-have done with regard to freight rates.
In 1897 a government of Liberal persuasion established the Crowsnest pass rates. I have not gone into it fully, but I think they must be the lowest rates on grain in the world. Certainly they have not been touched since that time with the exception I mentioned earlier. In 1903 a government of similar persuasion enacted the Railway Act and established the board of railway commissioners, as it was known at that time, to deal with this difficult problem of rate fixing. That matter was taken from the subcommittee of the cabinet which up until that time had dealt with freight rates and which never should have dealt with freight rates, and the board was given responsibility for fixing such rates.
In 1924 a Liberal government inaugurated a freight rate investigation to determine whether or not it was possible to equalize freight rates in Canada. In 1927 they introduced the Maritime Freight Rates Act giving the benefit of a 20 per cent reduction in freight rates to that select maritime region. From 1948 to 1950 it first of all reduced the mountain differential from one and a half miles in the prairie provinces equalling one mile on the Pacific coast to one and one-quarter miles. Then it reduced the one and one-quarter miles to one mile, removing the mountain differential entirely in 1950.


Howard Charles Green: The government did not do that. The board did.


Lionel Chevrier: The board of transport commissioners did it, but I am answering some of those people who made that criticism against the government. You cannot have it both ways. In 1948 the government strengthened the board of transport commissioners, as I indicated a moment ago, established under P.C. 1487 the freight rate investigation, and then in 1948 appointed the royal commission,
Railway Act
which was the wish and desire of the provinces, upon references almost identical with those proposed by the provinces.


Howard Charles Green: It took an awful lot of pressure to get that.


Lionel Chevrier: Finally in 1951 there is this legislation. One final word. It was said in this house-and I agree with every word of it; in fact I think in introducing the measure I made the statement myself-that this is the most important and most forward piece of legislation having to do with freight rates that has ever been attempted in this house. This legislation may bog down or it may emerge with a number of amendments that will be helpful to the country as a whole. It may bog down because of long delaying procedures in the committee, lengthy representations such as we had before the board of transport commissioners and the royal commission on transportation. I hope that will not be the case because it is the duty and responsibility of the house and of parliament to decide whether or not this legislation is good in principle and whether or not it can be strengthened in committee.
The provinces, I believe, requested this legislation. The provinces asked for the royal commission which recommended it and the royal commission after careful study suggested that these were the remedies for the problem of a uniform freight rate structure in Canada as well as the solution of other freight rate grievances submitted to them. Thus far there has been unanimity on the broad principle of equalization. The measure now goes to the committee, and as I stated earlier two things may happen to it there. I hope members of the house who are particularly interested in the legislation will see to it that it does not bog down in the committee, that it receives, careful study there, that such representations as are deemed advisable by the committee are heard, and that such amendments as are in the interests of the economy of the country are made to it. If such action takes place then I have no doubt that something good will come out of this legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on railway legislation.

Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No. 6, to amend the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 1933.

Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister make a statement?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The recommendations contained by way of legislation in this bill are those which can be found in chapter VIII of the report of the royal commission on transportation at page 223. These recommendations were that the annual report of the Canadian National Railways to the committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government should contain a separate section giving certain information dealing with co-operation between the two railways. The information which was recommended by the royal commission is that contained in the new section 14A, subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of the bill. I think and hope it will commend itself to the house.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on the bill. At first reading it appears to be almost a trivial measure, yet as one looks at it further I think there is more contained in it than meets the eye at first glance. I should like to recall to the house very briefly the background of the measure, which is a bill to try to facilitate co-operation between the two railways and thus effect economies. Its origin goes back to the Duff report of 1932 when, as we will all remember, the railway business like almost every other business was in a very bad state. One of the recommendations made in the Duff report to assist the almost desperate situation of the railways at that time is contained on page 65 of the report and reads:
A statutory duty should be imposed upon the trustees.-
That is the trustees of the Canadian National.
-as well as upon the board of directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway that . . . they should adopt as soon as practicable such co-operative measures, plans and arrangements as shall ... be best adapted to the removal of unnecessary or wasteful services or practices . . .
I need not go into that at any length. The Duff report indicated that in those days of difficulty and perplexity the possibility of amalgamating the railways had been suggested, but they put that aside and instead made several other recommendations of which this was one. It is interesting to read the debate in the house at the time of the passing of the act in 1933. I shall not detain members except to refer to one figure which was given by the then minister of railways, which indicates the drastic shrinkage which


had occurred in the railway business. On March 7, 1933, he said, as recorded* at page 2774 of Hansard:
It might be of interest to mention a few figures illustrating the decrease in traffic on all the railways on this half of the continent. Passengers carried in 1923 by the two great railway companies of this country amounted to 38 million, whereas in 1932 that number had decreased to less than half, about 18 million.
I put that one figure on record just to show the terrific difficulties that faced those who were responsible at that time. The results of co-operation, judged by our standards of today, were not very impressive, but nevertheless judged by the standards of those days they were not negligible. They managed to institute economies to save something over a million dollars a year. Bear in mind that at that time $500 million represented the total expenditure of the dominion, and not merely a surplus which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) stumbled on by mistake, as we have today. Therefore that million dollars was not chicken feed at that time. Since then the situation has gone along, and of course it has to be recognized that in times of big railway business co-operation, the pooling of trains and so on, is no doubt a very different matter from what it is in times of small business. Nevertheless, when this matter came before the commission they dealt with it seriously. I should like to refer briefly again to some of the recommendations made to the commission, or to some of what they call complaints and suggestions. Then I should like to refer to two or three of their conclusions, winding up with this measure which we have before us. The complaints which I should like to refer to, and I shall not mention them all, are to be found at page 222 of the report. No. 4 reads as follows:
The railways complain that on measures where they have reached agreement where abandonments of lines were involved, some of the parties who now urge co-operation opposed railway applications to the board for the approval of such abandonments.
I mention that merely because that is a place where we, the rank and file of citizens- and perhaps this applies to members of this house also-have not helped the railways, as we might have done, to make economies which they have wished to make. Other suggestions were made to the board which are interesting and relevant, though the board did not accept them all. The board took the view, which I think was wise, that there should not be any attempt made to force the railways to co-operate because, after all, forced cooperation is not very good co-operation.

However, they mentioned these suggestions made to them, which I read briefly:
In rate eases, the board should not grant increases in rates until the railways have affirmatively shown that all possible economies under the act have been effected.
Then next:
Another proposal was that a new tribunal should be set up to conduct research into possible cooperative measures and to make recommendations to the railways and to submit reports to parliament.
And finally, under the heading of suggestions, the commission says:
The railways took the position that the act should remain in force, and that no amendments are required.
In other words the railways took the position that they should be allowed to co-operate. I think we should assume that the men who head these railways will try to co-operate; though, on the other hand, I think the check, the publicity which is proposed to be given to what they do under this proposed measure, is sound.
The board raises one other point which I think also is important:
The results achieved under the act have been twofold:
(i) economies have resulted which exceeded a million dollars a year in the 1930's; (ii) the railways have been deterred from damaging and wasteful competition.
The damaging and wasteful competition goes back, I suppose, to the 1920's when it was felt that there was a certain amount of it. The board suggests that this co-operative measure has tended to put an end to that. Under the head of conclusions the board says, among other things:
The suggestion that the board, in revenue cases, should require the railways to show that they have neglected no possible economy under the act seems unworkable. It would require the railways to prove a negative and would lend itself to obstruction.
Finally the commission says:
The act has served a useful purpose. In proposing amendments to it, the aim of the commission is to improve the character of the annual report received by parliament.
One might point out that, owing to the rise in railway costs and their need for additional revenue, we are now running into a time which, while it happily is as different as can be from the times of the 1930's, nevertheless will make the public more conscious of economies; that is to say, if the railways are coming, as they must come, asking for higher rates, then I think it will be reasonable to expect that they will have done, as I am sure they will wish to do, all that is in their power to bring down costs by co-operation. Therefore while I do not propose to read the terms of this section, broadly
Maritime Freight Rates Act speaking what it does is to provide that the national railways shall, in their report, give the results achieved during the year, pointing out not only what has been approved and carried out, not only what has been approved and not carried out, but also co-operative projects which have been studied during the year. I take it that provision will give to the committee which receives the national railways report each year a better opportunity than they had previously to consider what has been done. In the circumstances we now face-that is to say, the need of applying for increased rates-I would hope that the railways will, as I am sure they will, do everything possible to make the public, as represented by parliament, feel that they have done their utmost to co-operate. I understand that the minister proposes to refer this bill to a committee also, and 1 think I need say no more.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on railway legislation.


Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No. 7, to amend the Maritime Freight Rates Act.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain the bill?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, this bill consists of two simple amendments recommended by the royal commission on transportation. Chapter IX of the commission's report entitled "The Maritime Freight Rates Act" goes at some length into a number of suggestions that were made by the various provinces which appeared before the commission; and the commission came to the conclusion that two amendments should be made. One is that the practice of the railways and the board to allow the 20 per cent preference on westbound traffic moving rail and lake, and also rail, lake and rail from the maritime area to points in Canada should be put in a legislative rather than in a practical position. Since the Canadian National Railways was not abiding by the terms of section 6 because of the practice which had grown up over the years, both by the railways and by the board, who allowed the railways to act thus because it seemed the intention that that should be the case, the commission recommends that section 6 of the Maritime Freight Rates Act be repealed. These are two minor amendments which, as I say, are contained in the

Maritime Freight Rates Act report. It is my intention that this bill also be sent to the special committee on railway legislation, and I propose so to move at the conclusion of this discussion.


Mr. P. C. Black (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, those of us who come from the maritime provinces are naturally extremely sensitive with respect to any proposed amendments to the Maritime Freight Rates Act. We obtained the advantages we receive under this act only after long effort, at the solicitation of the government of Nova Scotia on behalf of the people of Nova Scotia, who were perhaps as nearly unanimous as it was possible for them to be. I want to pay tribute to the present Senator Dennis for the active interest he took in that campaign. We were not able to get reduced rates in the ordinary course, and a commission was set up consisting of Sir Andrew Rae Duncan, the late Judge Wallace and Dr. Macmillan. I have previously paid tribute to them-and I want to do so again-for the magnificent work they did at that time in studying the question and bringing in their report, which has resulted in great benefits to the maritime provinces. The feeling of the people most directly concerned at the present time is that those rights and advantages which were obtained by great effort have been largely whittled away.
Railway transportation is most important to the maritime provinces. When we entered into confederation-and confederation would never have been possible had it not been for the stand taken by Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces-one condition was the building of the Intercolonial railway which was to carry our traffic to and from central Canada. This condition was implemented, but Nova Scotia has had very little consideration since that time with respect to transportation. The Canadian Pacific railway has never been permitted to enter Nova Scotia directly. It was never given running rights over the Canadian National railways, so we have never had this benefit of direct traffic connections with that great railway system which other Canadians have enjoyed.
May I mention also the expenditures in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific. In other provinces hundreds of millions of dollars were expended, but Nova Scotia never received a dollar. All we got, and that at election time, was the government's cry: "Listen to the whistle of the Hong Kong train." I might mention, too, the Chignecto canal, which was a condition of confederation. The matter has been brought before the federal government at different times since confederation. Within the last twelve months it was placed before this government, but was brushed aside. I am not suggesting
(Mr. Chevrier.]

that the building of that canal would have brought us all the benefits we would have liked, but it would have assisted us. We were entitled to it. In central Canada $350 million or more have been spent from which we have not been able to get any benefit. The matter of this canal still has to be dealt with.
The Maritime Freight Rates Act has been precious to us. As I said, its benefits have been largely reduced so that the situation in the maritime provinces today is becoming serious. I am going to read some portions of the Turgeon commission report. This is an important document containing over 300 pages. One can hardly turn to a page in it without finding references to the difficulties under which the maritime provinces labour in connection with transportation; how the highways have taken a large amount of traffic in central Canada, causing the railways to reduce their rates to meet that competition; how traffic is being carried on the toll-free canals, rivers and lakes of central Canada, thus reducing the cost of transportation there. These are benefits the maritimes have not received. We are, therefore, greatly concerned about the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
This act was passed to enable the maritime provinces to transport their basic products and their manufactured articles to central Canada on a favourable basis. It is the contention of the people of the maritime provinces that, if those results are not being obtained today, amendments should be made to this act to produce the desired results. I want to point out that the Turgeon commission report was not drawn up by the commissioners alone; they were assisted by a large number of capable men, economists, railway counsel and railway experts. Their names are set out on pages 15 and 16 of the report, headed by that of Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, K.C. Many briefs were presented to the commission and many witnesses appeared before it. A list of these is found in the first few pages. Since the report is largely the work of experts I do not feel I am qualified to deal with it. This is a matter for men trained in transportation problems, not for ordinary laymen.
I can point out, however, many disabilities under which we in the maritime provinces are now operating. As I have said, I am not opposed to this bill because of what it contains. It contains very little. I do not believe it would be of any importance whatever if it were not passed. The railways have been hauling the traffic that is involved in this amendment. What we do ask is that something be added in order that we will be assured of the strengthening of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. I should like to read some of the

statements made by the commissioners. These are not recommendations, but are statements of sufficient importance that I should read them. I read on page 27:
The maritime provinces state that when compared to central Canada their economy is found to be deteriorating, and that this trend is influenced by the increased cost of transportation to central Canada and by the contraction of foreign markets; for example the loss of markets for apples, lumber and pit props in the United Kingdom, and potatoes in the United States.
If there is deterioration in the movement of our products from the maritime provinces it is a serious matter for those provinces, and those of us who have seats in this house have a special responsibility. Before I go further I want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) who said in his remarks that the horizontal increases of the past several years have discriminated against the maritimes. I want to quote the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) who said, as reported at page 442 of Hansard:
We have a great deal of sympathy for our brethren in the maritimes because we know something of the tragic effects which certain movements have had on their economy since confederation. We are ready to support their efforts to maintain their preferred position under the freight rates structure. We have never requested that the western provinces achieve equalization with the maritimes but we are anxious to achieve equalization with the central provinces.
I also want to give recognition to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) for his reference to the maritime provinces and his expression of sympathy for their request. I want to refer to the very sympathetic remarks made this afternoon by the hon, member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) and other hon. members. There is a general feeling, in fact a conviction, not only in the maritime provinces but all over Canada, that having regard to the sacrifices and contributions we have made to confederation, we have not prospered as we should; and that is largely because of the handicaps with respect to transportation.
I am going to quote further from the Turgeon report at page 27:
The case of the maritimes may be summarized; At confederation they were promised access to the central Canadian market. Today, in view of the deterioration in foreign trade, particularly because of monetary and commercial restrictions, access to the central Canadian market has become more important than ever. Isolation of the maritimes from the central Canadian area as a result of distance and of increased freight charges is one of the central themes put forward in their case. A witness for the transportation commission of the maritime board of trade, when asked whether or not the maritimes were willing to accept their disadvantages provided they retained their advantages, replied:
Maritime Freight Rates Act
"The national background in connection with our Intercolonial Railway was to afford persons and industries to get into the markets of central Canada. That is the basic principle."
The Maritime Freight Rates Act is regarded as the instrument intended to facilitate access to the central Canadian markets.
It was suggested by the same witness that this instrument is losing its effectiveness:
That is a serious statement for this commission to make or even to quote. I go on:
"The general tenor of the evidence of the maritime approach ... is that the changes which have taken place since the Maritime Freight Rates Act became effective in 1927 are having the effect of enhancing the difficulty of maritime producers in reaching the highly competitive markets of central Canada in competition with industries located closer to the markets."
Maritime shippers allege that these changes have resulted principally (1) from the increase of truck competition in central Canada, which has had the effect of lowering rates for their competitors in that market, and (2) from the recent general horizontal increases, particularly on the long haul from the select area westward. These changes, they say. have decreased the advantages which the rates established under the act of 1927 were intended to confer on the maritimes.
Anyone interested in the maritimes hearing these statements is bound to be filled with misgivings as to the situation that is developing. The report goes on:
Horizontal increases are said to be specially detrimental to the economy because in terms of dollars they increase long haul more than short haul rates and thus increase the competitive difficulties of maritime producers in their principal markets. The net effect of all these factors is said to place the maritime economy at a disadvantage in relation to local producers in the central Canadian market.
These conditions are set out by the Turgeon commission, but unfortunately they have done nothing about them. They gave certain information with regard to the cause and effect of mileage rates, and show that the maritime provinces are detrimentally affected. On page 29 of the report they go on to say:
It seems clear that growing dependence on the central Canadian market and the relatively long haul from the maritimes to this area are the principal reasons for maritime complaints about freight rate increases.
The concern of the maritimes with the problem of access to the central Canadian market and of cheap transportation on goods drawn from that area has become acute as a result of the recent rate increases. This concern may be partly a result of the expansion of industry in time of war which was no doubt assisted by the freezing of freight rates, and of the desire to hold the gains made during the war.
I reiterate this one word "acute". The situation is becoming acute in the maritime provinces; therefore why should we not have misgivings over developments regarding the freight charges on our production? The commission go on and make certain references to recommendations. They are important enough for the commission to set them out

Maritime Freight Rates Act but, as I say, they did nothing about them. Then I turn to page 45. Almost every page of every chapter of this report makes some reference to the detrimental effect on the maritimes and the difficulties under which they are obliged to carry on their business activities. At page 45 I read the following:
The provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island apparently feel that regulation by the board is not the answer to their disadvantages, but rather that the answer lies in further reductions under, and extension of, the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
The province of Nova Scotia likewise feels that the granting of further powers to the board is not the answer to the problems raised by its disadvantages, but that the answer lies in compelling the board by statute to retain rate relationships as they existed prior to April 8, 1948,
Further down on the same page, I read:
In essence the main cause of complaint is that the outlying provinces suffer a disadvantage because of the long distances which separate them from their sources of supply and also from their markets-long-haul traffic, in some cases on primary commodities of low value, subjected to horizontal increases in rates.
And again:
All these provinces ask for lower freight rates although they suggest different methods of approach to this objective . . . The maritime provinces ask for reductions under the Maritime Freight Rates Act or for extensions of that act.
And at page 46:
Whatever the method of approach may be, however, it is in each case an attempt by shippers and consignees to secure relief from the disadvantages attributed to increases in rates by the horizontal percentage method, and at the same time to retain any existing advantages in rates which they now enjoy. The maritime provinces wish to retain the advantages of the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
And the following:
The railways on the other hand are anxious to preserve the horizontal method of rate increases because of its simplicity of application, because they fear that they cannot raise adequate revenue without it by reason of truck competition in central Canada, and because they enjoy a quasi-monopoly on long-haul traffic.
This report sets out the difficulties under which the maritime provinces are operating. It also indicates clearly that the chief purpose of the railways is to get increased rates; and they have very little if any regard for where it comes from or how it is raised. I point this out to show how serious is the matter for my part of Canada.
There have been these repeated horizontal increases in freight rates. That is referred to here as being detrimental to the best interests of the maritime provinces. Mention has been made that another change in railway rates is before the board of transport commissioners. This new schedule, based upon equalization across Canada, very seriously affects the rates in the maritime provinces. It is remarkable and strange to realize that

those rates are filed now before the board of transport commissioners, although they are based upon legislation now before the house. The house has not yet passed the legislation, yet the railways are so anxious to have increased revenue, and so indifferent as to where it comes from, that already they have filed these revised and increased rates with the board of transport commissioners.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the hon. member permit me to state that the plan filed by the railways is under the investigation, P.C. 1487, and not under this legislation, which does not become law until passed by parliament.


Percy Chapman Black: The fact is the rates are filed, based upon the expected implementation of the report and with a view to the equalization of freight rates throughout Canada. The matter is so serious that if it is put into effect it will in some cases double the cost of transportation in the maritime provinces. That being so, it is serious for us in the outlying areas of Canada. We in the maritimes have a deeper interest in Canada as a whole. We threw in our destiny with Canada at the time of confederation. That action was based upon railway transportation sufficient to handle our products. If this is being taken away from us, if we are to be denied those facilities or if they are endangered by further increases, then we will be prevented from shipping our natural products or our manufactured goods, such as we have. No subject could be more serious for us than the one now under discussion. No subject could be more serious for anyone who has the interests of Canada as a whole at heart, and that would apply particularly to those of us from the maritimes.
As I said earlier, I could open this report of the royal commission on transportation at almost any page and find statements that make it look serious for us in the maritimes, or that affect the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Let me read from page 228:
There are two important statements in the preamble which form a guide in reaching decisions on the various claims put forward by parties appearing before the commission asking that the act be amended in various ways:
1st. The recognition of pre-confederation pronouncements that the Intercolonial Railway was designed to afford maritime merchants, traders and manufacturers the larger market of the whole Canadian people instead of the restricted market of the maritimes themselves; and
2nd. The recognition that, having regard to such pre-confederation pronouncements, the burden imposed upon the trade and commerce of the maritime provinces resulting from increased freight rates after 1912 was never intended to be borne by such trade and commerce.
Section 4 of the act lists "preferred movements":
"(a) Local traffic, all rail-between points on the eastern lines; for example Sydney to Newcastle-"

It goes on to give further particulars. Then on the following page:
It is perhaps important in considering the matter to bear in mind that the 20 per cent reduction was based on a calculation made by the royal commission under the chairmanship of Sir Andrew Rae Duncan, which found that from 1876 to 1912 rates over the Intercolonial Railway had been kept at a low level to carry out the policy of successive federal governments and the pledges that had been made prior to confederation. The Duncan commission found that the rates had been increased after 1912 on the Intercolonial so that "their 100 had become 192" and that the estimated average increase of rates in the rest of Canada was 55 per cent, so that "their 100 has become 155". The 20 per cent reduction on the Intercolonial rates was intended to make the 192 become approximately 155, and thus restore the position previously enjoyed.
I point out that many people in the maritime provinces do not believe the 20 per cent at that time was adequate to restore the position previously enjoyed. I go on to quote from the paragraph headed "Complaints and suggestions", where it says:
The chief complaint presented to the commission concerning the operation of the act had to do with a situation which arises out of truck competition in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. It was alleged by the maritime board of trade that, as a result of truck competition in these provinces, the railways had reduced their rates on traffic in central Canada while maintaining them on similar traffic moving from the maritimes to Quebec and Ontario.
I referred to that before, but I have read it again to show the importance of this subject to us in the maritimes, and why we should have misgivings as to the effect of the legislation before the house. The paragraph goes on:
First, one made by the board when it pointed out that the cancellation of the competitive rates in Ontario would not improve the position of the maritime shippers in any degree since the raising of tolls in Ontario would merely drive business to the trucks and the board has no authority to lower tolls in the maritimes because of competition existing in another part of the country.
If that is undermining and destroying the Maritime Freight Rates Act, then something should be done about it. That is why I am not satisfied with this innocuous bill. If the royal commission has failed to make recommendations that will rectify the position we now face, it is the duty of this house to make such recommendations as will strengthen the Maritime Freight Rates Act so our traffic may move as we hoped at the time of confederation. We had to fight from 1912 to 1925 to get the Maritime Freight Rates Act passed. If that proved effective for a number of years, it is not now effective or the Turgeon commission would not have made the statements it has made on page after page of the report.
There are many more sections which I should like to quote, but I would like to refer
Maritime Freight Rates Act particularly to a statement by Dr. Innis to be found at page 307 of the report, as follows:
No scheme of equalization can be devised which will overcome the effects of competition in the St. Lawrence region as reflected particularly in competitive rates. An obsession with equalization will obscure the handicaps of the maritimes and of western Canada and perpetuate their paralyzing effects.
Those are serious statements to be made by a commission or by any member of it. Is it any wonder that we in the maritime provinces fear today that the privileges or advantages or rights granted to us under the Maritime Freight Rates Act are being washed away. Only a few people seem to have any real regard for this fact. The minister seems to be mainly interested in having this legislation passed and is not taking the interest he should in seeing that the Maritime Freight Rates Act is made as strong as it was when originally passed, or even stronger. It should be strong enough to serve the purposes of the maritime provinces. Again I say those provinces made the greatest contribution of any part of Canada to confederation. The prairie provinces have rights, but we claim that we have prior rights in Nova Scotia because of the contribution we made to confederation. Statesmen like Sir Charles Tupper made Canada possible and took statesmanlike positions in carrying out the responsibilities of government in the years after confederation.
I am not at all satisfied with this bill which has been suggested by the minister. We want more. If the Maritime Freight Rates Act is not meeting the transportation requirements of the maritime provinces we must do something about it. This house must assume some responsibility. I should like to propose certain amendments to the bill that I think would be effective, but I am told it is questionable whether they would be accepted by Mr. Speaker. However, I am going to move, seconded by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure):
That the said bill be not now read the second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the special committee on railway legislation, with instructions that they have power to send for papers and records, and that in addition to any other recommendations with respect of the subject matter of the said bill, they shall also have power to examine and report upon the extent to which the benefits conferred by the Maritime Freight Rates Act are affected by Canadian transportation policy.


Lionel Chevrier: May I say a word in connection with the amendment. I have not had an opportunity to consider whether or not it is in order, but that is a matter for you to decide, Mr. Speaker. I would point out that if this amendment were to pass it would kill this biU.
536	HOUSE OF
Maritime Freight Rates Act


Percy Chapman Black: I do not think
that would hurt anybody.


Lionel Chevrier: Were that to take place
the very thing being sought in the second part of the amendment would be blocked, that is:
-that they have power to send for papers and records, and that in addition to any other recommendations with respect of the subject matter of the said bill, they shall also have power to examine and report upon the extent to which the benefits conferred by the Maritime Freight Rates Act are affected by Canadian transportation policy.
Those matters were studied by the royal commission and reference is made to them in their recommendations, some of which the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) quoted a moment ago.


Percy Chapman Black: We are senior
to any royal commission. We have rights, and now is the time to exercise them.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not suggesting that my hon. friend has not rights, but perhaps he will allow me to -continue.


Percy Chapman Black: The members of this house have rights, or used to have rights.


Lionel Chevrier: I was going on to say that
the committee to which this bill is being referred, namely the select committee on railway legislation, will have all the powers that are sought by this amendment. In addition, it might well be that the amendment is out of order, but I have not given any thought to that.


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) has dealt with the Maritime Freight Rates Act in a manner which I am afraid I cannot equal. First of all I should like to refer to how the Maritime Freight Rates Act has been misunderstood by members of this house and people in various parts of Canada. The royal commission has referred to this as a subsidy to the maritime provinces. Other people have referred to it as a gift to the maritime provinces. Others have referred to it as a handout. It is none of these, and the hon. member for Cumberland has shown why it is not. I am going to try to give a correct understanding of the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
In 1912 or thereabouts a new freight rate structure was set up which gave an increase of 55 points across Canada, except in the maritime provinces where they tacked on 92 points, making the rates 155 against 192. At the time the Duncan commission was appointed we had put up with these injustices for years. When they looked into these matters they brought them to a head and we
[Mr. Chevrier.)

received some redress, but it was not sufficient. The difference between 55 and 92 is 37 points, but when they were formulating their recommendations they took 20 per cent off 192 instead of taking 37 points off the basis on which the rates were figured. Therefore the 20 per cent we have been receiving in an endeavour to equalize freight rates in the maritimes with those of the west and the rest of Canada was not sufficient to do so. If equalization is now going to take place on the same basis, we will get an increase added to 192 while the others will have it added to 155. Therefore we are paying and will continue to pay more unless we get some redress at the present time.
I hope I have made it plain that it is not a subsidy. It is not a handout, or a gift from the government. It is an endeavour to remove a part of the discrimination under which we struggled from 1912 to 1927 without any redress, and even then we got only half what we should have received. With respect to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) and seconded by myself, instead of 20 per cent I think we should have used the figure 37t to equalize our situation with the rest of Canada. However, as the hon. member has said, I understand that we cannot bring in any reference to money. When the bill is referred to the committee probably they will see the justice of our claim, and we still hope to get some redress.
For a few hours the house has been considering what one might call the high cost of transportation, in other words the high cost of distribution by freight of the products of the land, sea and factories. I do not know how far we are going to get when we speak about equalization. At the present time freight rates are extremely high, and no one feels it so much as the people of the provinces down by the sea. I am sure it is not the intention of the government to punish the maritime provinces by high freight rates any more than they have been punished during the past few years. We have not only been punished by high freight rates; we have also been neglected in a great many other ways which we will deal with at the proper time.
In our study of the report of the royal commission which has been presented to the house we are looking, as it were, into the crystal ball of the Turgeon commission. One thing stands out very clearly. The two central provinces did not take a very active part in the proceedings before the commission which gave rise to the report. As the report says, the two central provinces of Ontario and Quebec are satisfied. On the other hand the

report also says that the maritime provinces do not subscribe to the conclusions arrived at therein. With reference to the two great provinces of Ontario and Quebec, I want to say that centralization has taken place there to the detriment of the maritime provinces.
Taking the historical situation, Upper and Lower Canada, now Ontario and Quebec, had the idea of union of the British territories in Canada. They sought to bring about such a union. Prior to 1867 the development of the two great central provinces had been extremely good and they were both anxious for further development. When they looked into the matter of how to proceed they found that they must have a proper seaport. Their eyes were on the great seaports of Saint John and Halifax. Then the courting began to bring about union. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island did not go to the central provinces to seek union. It was the reverse. They came to the maritime provinces seeking to get them to enter union because they wanted to get the benefit of their seaports. The seaports of the maritimes could be used at all times of the year, whereas the central provinces had access to the sea for only a short time.
In dealing with this matter I am not speaking against the two great provinces that are the source of the largest share of taxes collected in this country. However, I had hoped that, even if they were satisfied with the freight rates themselves because they did not affect them, in the general interests of Canada they would help the maritime provinces with their problems. There are many things that one might deal with. I am going to speak for a few moments with reference to my own province. We did not enter confederation when Nova Scotia and New Brunswick did. We held out until 1873, and at that time it was generally thought by our people that the terms of union were satisfactory. Possibly they were generous and satisfactory enough, but there was one weakness in the contract. There was no penalty for the non-fulfilment thereof. Because of non-fulfilment of the contract on the part of various governments of the dominion after we had joined confederation, the province of Prince Edward Island, instead of reaping the benefits offered in the contract, began to go down downhill, as it were. Our population decreased from 113,000 to about 90,000. This was due to the fact that the agreement as to transportation in reference to our province was never implemented according to the terms of union. For that I do not blame any one government; I blame them all. There was only one government that really tried to implement the terms of
Maritime Freight Rates Act union, and they did so to the full in the short time they were in power. It was the Borden government that gave us the first fulfilment of our contract with reference to transportation. We had that ferry system. However, the great mistake with regard to it was that the government did not operate it themselves but passed it over to a subcontractor, without proper authority over him. Consequently for years we were punished with high rates on trucks and motor cars. But fortunately, after representations had been made here in this house and plea after plea had been made, those rates were reasonably lowered. However, they are not yet sufficiently low. We are still suffering injustice in that the strait of Northumberland is not treated as a highway, as it should be. But that is something that will come. We have hopes that in the near future some government will realize our requirements and in addition to realizing them-as perhaps we all do-they will do better and fulfil their obligation to our province, which has been neglected.
Another matter I might mention is this, and we can come back to some of our complaints later. All railways in Canada were supposedly built for traffic east and west, and for the general development of our country. If that is so, why should we not continue that policy and use the railways for that particular purpose? If we did so the government would be developing the country. The railways could then operate, and when they had a deficit or shortage they would have something to show for it in the way of assets, by way of the development of our country in general. The government would then pay as they are doing today.
Centralization has done a great deal to harm the maritime provinces; and centralization has become really a bug with the Canadian National Railways. They commenced centralizing all their works in the larger centres. Before this centralizing bug became so lively with the Canadian National Railways, in my city of Charlottetown we had railway shops which employed some 365 men; and upwards of 40 young men were learning trades. We had excellent mechanics. We did all our own repair work for the railway in our own division. We built freight cars and all kinds of cars. The work was always satisfactory and our railway was in good condition. When centralization came about we lost all this employment and it was taken to Moncton, Montreal and other centres. Today our shops are practically cleaned out and we have about 20 or 25 men working there. This and other forms of centralization have had
538	HOUSE OF
Maritime Freight Rates Act the result that the people in the maritimes, particularly those in my province, have not been given a fair chance,
I want to say a few words with regard to present freight rates. In the maritimes our commodity or what we might term-speaking in western terms-our cash crop largely has been the potato crop. The maritime provinces, including my province, produce 42 per cent of all the potatoes produced in the whole of Canada. I want to bring this point to the attention of the house, because of the long haul traffic that the maritime provinces supply for the Canadian National Railways. When the crop of 1949-50 was being harvested and marketed some 16,000 carloads of potatoes were shipped on the long haul, for the benefit of the Canadian National Railways, to other points in Canada. Let us compare that figure with the one for the central provinces. The central provinces produce 45 per cent of the total potato production of Canada. How many cars did they have on the long haul? They shipped only 742 carloads of potatoes, compared with the maritimes 16,000 cars. I mention that fact just to show that the railway has an earning power in the maritime provinces, through their shipments on the long haul freight.
In dealing with that matter I might also mention this point. With the central provinces producing 45 per cent of the total potato production of Canada, why did they transport only 742 carloads on the long haul by freight? That was due to the fact that they can transport their potatoes much more cheaply by truck and in other ways. We cannot meet that competition. We cannot compete with them because we have to accept the long haul.
This brings me to the freight rates of today. On our cash crop, namely our potato crop, today we have a rate to Toronto-to take one city alone which has been a big market for us-of 62 and 63 cents per one hundred pounds from various points in Prince Edward Island. This figure is extremely high. Not so many years ago the rate was 20 cents. It then went to 22 cents, to 36 cents, and now it is 62 cents with prospects of a further increase which will make it 75 cents per hundred pounds. This is having the effect of destroying our market in the central provinces, a market which we have been able to supply. As a result of these heavy freight charges the railways will receive more revenue than the farmer who produced the carload of potatoes. I say this is a matter which deserves consideration. We should like to have some assurance that the passage of this bill, together with the others that are in various stages here, will have the effect of reducing


the rate on our cash crop. It is impossible to meet competition in the central provinces when the delivery rate there is 20 cents per hundred pounds as against our freight rate of 62 cents.
This is a serious matter for us, and one which should have the consideration of this government. I have no quarrel with the Canadian National Railways, even though I am making these complaints. They are running their own business. I do not blame them for working both ends against the middle, but we are getting a raw deal. I place the blame where it belongs, on the government. If they were to fulfil the terms of the contract of 1873 we would not have to come here and plead for mercy or try to place the blame on the Canadian National Railways. It is up to the government to give us some redress under the terms of the agreement of 1873 with regard to these excessive freight charges that are imposed upon us. They will drive our farmers out of the greatest cash crop they have.
We have other problems as well, but they cannot be discussed under the bill which is now before us. All I want to say is that if we could have the terms of union thoroughly investigated and then fully implemented by the government it would be of considerable help. Only one government has ever tried to implement the terms of union in a logical way, and that was the Borden administration. Every other government has given us the go-by. We hope that from now on this government will look after our interests. In passing this bill we must and should have a guarantee from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) on behalf of his government that we will have every protection, and that there will be no increases or any equalization scheme which will do harm to the Maritime Freight Rates Act or the interests of the maritime provinces.


Mr. Gillis:: I am not going to speak at any great length, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to say a few words before you give your ruling on the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Call it 6.30.


Clarence Gillis: I am in Mr. Speaker's hands. If he wishes to call it 6.30-


Mr. Speaker:: I am in the hands of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Call it 6.30.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 6.30, I do now leave the chair.
At 6.30 p.m. the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should now decide the question that has been raised as to whether the amendment is in order. The trouble I find is that the amendment seeks to refer the subject matter of this bill to the special committee on railway legislation. That committee was set up to consider three bills which are before the house, namely, Bill No. 12, to amend the Railway Act, Bill No. 6, to amend the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 1933 and Bill No. 7, to amend the Maritime Freight Rates Act, and such other railway legislation as may be placed before it. The committee has no power to consider matters other than those set forth in the motion setting up the committee. On another occasion in this house I ruled that the powers of a committee cannot be extended on the motion to set up the committee without notice having been given. Accordingly you cannot refer to a committee matters which are beyond the powers set forth in the motion setting up the committee.
I would also point out that the latter part of the amendment asks that the committee- -have power to examine and report upon the extent to which the benefits conferred by the Maritime Freight Rates Act are affected by Canadian transportation policy.
I think that would definitely be beyond the powers of the committee. Nevertheless I think there is a standing committee to which this matter could be referred. It occurred to me that the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines would be competent to deal with this amendment. It also occurred to me that probably the hon. member who moved the amendment might like to substitute some other committee for the committee named; that is, if the house is in agreement with me that the special committee on railway legislation could not consider this amendment.


Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Speaker,
personally I am very pleased to concur in the suggestion made by you to refer this matter to the standing committee, subject to the permission of the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) who seconded the motion, and of other hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the motion is amended by substituting for "the special committee on railway legislation" the words "the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines".


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I
listened very attentively to what you said. I am sure you will not object to my saying that you implied the house would concur
Maritime Freight Rates Act in the amendment suggesting that the subject matter should be sent to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines; but what we intend to send to the committee is what we announced some time ago, and what the minister repeated this afternoon. Therefore if this amendment is put to a vote the government will have to vote against it.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not mean to imply that the government would agree to the changes I was suggesting, or that the amendment would meet either with the approval or disapproval of the house. The reason I brought it up was to make sure that the amendment was put in proper form.


Alphonse Fournier: I did not object, but I am reserving the right to vote against it.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the house to amend the Maritime Freight Rates Act can have only one interpretation, as I see it. The bill deals with the principle of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Are we in favour or otherwise of the 20 per cent rebate of freight rates as applied under that act? I listened to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I have a lot of respect for your judgment. As I understand the main motion now before the house it is to have the bill amending the Maritime Freight Rates Act, along with the other bills, go to a special committee to be set up by this house.


Howard Charles Green: It is for second reading only.


Clarence Gillis: That is quite right. Then we have the amendment. While on second reading we are discussing the principle of freight rates generally and the application of the 20 per cent rebate to the general freight rates, yet the amendment suggests that we should send the bill to a standing committee of the house for the purpose of dealing with the subject matter of it. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has made it very clear that it is not his intention to have the general freight rate question discussed by a standing committee of the house. A special committee is to be set up for that purpose. I make those remarks because I do not think you can divorce the Maritime Freight Rates Act from the general freight rate picture. To follow the suggestion made by Mr. Speaker to the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) that he be satisfied to have this bill go to a standing committee of the house would, in my opinion, be contrary to the best interests of the subject matter of the bill. It has to be discussed in its relation to the general freight rate picture by the same committee.

Maritime Freight Rates Act
The vote on this question is bound to be kind of tricky. If we vote for the amendment and the question is passed to another committee and divorced from the general freight rate discussion, as I see it we will not be acting in the best interests of the maritimes. The amendment also suggests that the bill be not now read the second time. The principle of the bill maintains the principle of the rebate. If we vote either against your ruling on that score or vote straight for the amendment it could be construed that we are voting against the principle of the rebate under the Maritime Freight Rates Act.


George Clyde Nowlan: No.


Clarence Gillis: That is quite all right. I am thinking in terms of how someone outside is going to interpret it. There are a lot of members in this house, and you get a lot of interpretations from them. I am saying how I see the matter. What is the Joe in the street going to think about it when he reads the version of some newspaper person who wants to colour it to suit himself? I am interested in this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I want to see it discussed by the committee. It is going to operate with the general freight rate structure, because you cannot separate the two. I say that for this reason. I listened to the hon, member for Cumberland (Mr. Black), and I concur in what he said. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) made an excellent speech, and I have no objection to anything he said. As I have said, however, the bill states there is no interference with the Maritime Freight Rates Act. All the bill does is confirm the principle of the 20 per cent rebate under that act, and the rebate was granted to enable the maritime provinces, when marketing their products in the central markets, to overcome geographic and other disabilities that were aggravated at the time of confederation.
At the time the 20 per cent rebate was granted the rates were pretty low. In fact from 1927 up to the present there has been an increase to the extent of 47 per cent in freight rates in Canada. If that 47 per cent applied across the country, then the 20 per cent rebate under the Maritime Freight Rates Act would still be valid. But that is not what has taken place. Let us remember that the 20 per cent rebate was to enable products of the maritimes to enter the central markets in competition with similar goods from the central area in those markets.
While that 47 per cent applied straight across the board to the rates in the maritime provinces, the rates in Quebec and Ontario have not advanced proportionately. There has


been a very small percentage of increase in rates in the central provinces, because in those provinces the hauls are comparatively short. There is also trucking competition to keep the rates down. Indeed, those central provinces were so undisturbed about freight rates that they did not even bother appearing before the commission to give evidence. They are not concerned at all.
So if we are going to amend the Maritime Freight Rates Act we need something more than the bill now before us. We must have something more if we are to retain the benefits established by the act in 1927. In order to do that I say maritime freight rates cannot be separated from the general railway freight rate problem. For that reason I say it has to go to the same committee. I say further there is no use sending the bill in its present form to the committee, for the simple reason that if in committee one wants to make an analysis of the position of the maritime provinces under the present structure in relation to the 20 per cent rebate, he has to open up the whole question. That right was denied the maritime province representatives in 1948 when they made their submission to the board. When they asked for the opening up of the question, and for information and evidence upon which they could base an opinion, they were denied the right to proceed in that way.
I see no purpose to be served by placing the bill in its present form before any committee, because any committee that may handle it will have at its head a chairman who will stick to the subject matter of the bill, and that is merely the retention of the 20 per cent rebate under the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
In my opinion the bill is here for one purpose: when a general freight rate increase across the board was announced, there was considerable apprehension in the maritimes that it was going to defeat the purposes of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Statements have been made in the press that rates would go up to the extent of 100 per cent. The government, realizing that its bill with respect to general freight rates, arising out of the report of the royal commission, is rather weak and shaky, places this measure before us for the purpose of assuring or reassuring those who were concerned about the Maritime Freight Rates Act that nothing is going to be done to disturb it. In other words they say the status quo is to be maintained as it was in 1927.
But that is not good enough. As I suggested a moment ago, if we are to retain the 'position

to which the maritimes were entitled in 1927 under the Duncan commission report it is necessary to go into the whole rate increase problem as it applies to the central provinces and to the maritimes in order to work out another amendment to the Maritime Freight Rates Act respecting the amount of the rebate. On the last occasion I spoke I said I believed that to retain the benefits set up in 1927, instead of the 20 per cent the act should be amended so the rebate would be increased to either 30 or 35 per cent, depending upon the evidence produced. That would be necessary, in order to continue the benefits given under the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
I rose at this time merely to try to sort out some thoughts in my own mind, and to provoke the thought of other members respecting the implications in this bill. First, I want to have the Maritime Freight Rates Act discussed in its relationship to the general freight rates picture. The two cannot be divorced. If hon. members vote to have this bill placed in the hands of the committee on railways, canals, and telegraph lines, then in my opinion they are shelving the problem. They are placing this bill, which means nothing more than a confirmation of the 20 per cent rebate, in the hands of a committee which has nothing to do with the general freight rates discussion. The chairman of that committee, when discussion on the bill is proceeding, will simply read the bill and rule that members of the committee must stick strictly to its subject matter. They can pass it and send it back to the house so that it may be passed here. It does not mean anything, so far as the Maritime Freight Rates Act is concerned. On the other hand if we vote against the amendment it can be construed as voting against the principle of rebate in the Maritime Freight Rates Act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. I agree so fully with what he has said as to what he desires to come about that I am anxious to ask him this. My understanding is that the amendment proposed this afternoon contemplated a wide discussion of the whole problem. I understand the only change that has been made is that it will now be referred to the standing committee instead of to a special committee. If I am right in that, then does it not mean that the committee will arrive at some conclusions within the terms of reference, that those conclusions will then come back to the house, and that this house will then arrive at any conclusion it sees fit. I am not able to understand what
Maritime Freight Rates Act the hon. member means when he says that all that will be discussed is this bill, which I agree is just a useless gesture.


Clarence Gillis: That is all that will be discussed. The committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines is not a legislative body. They cannot recommend anything to the house that would be binding upon the house. If the bill in its present form is referred to that committee, the chairman of the committee has no power to recommend anything beyond the subject matter of the bill. Any hon. members who have been on a committee dealing with legislation passed to them from the house will know that is exactly the procedure followed. That committee could not recommend anything that meant an additional expenditure of money. Their recommendations would mean nothing as far as I am concerned. Any recommendations would simply be tabled in the house and forgotten. Anything that goes before that committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines will simply follow that pattern, and all we will have will be a confirmation of the Maritime Freight Rates Act as at present constituted. That is all that can come back from the committee.
The committee which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) suggests is to be set up will discuss the whole freight rates picture. You cannot divorce the Maritime Freight Rates Act from that discussion. The minute any member of the main committee wants to discuss the Maritime Freight Rates Act he will be told by the chairman that that matter is before another committee and is not germane to the discussion of the bill which was given second reading a short time ago.


Gordon Francis Higgins: It is to be the same committee.


Clarence Gillis: It is not to be the same committee. The amendment suggested by the hon. member has been changed so that the Maritime Freight Rates Act is to be sent to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. When the Minister of Transport was questioned on that subject he was adamant that Bill No. 12, which implements the recommendations of the royal commission, would not be sent to the standing committee but rather to a special committee. By putting the Maritime Freight Rates Act off in a corner in a standing committee of this house we will be divorcing the discussion of that act from the main discussion on freight rates. They belong together. You cannot adjust one without adjusting the other. Any change in the general freight rates structure affects the Maritime Freight Rates Act.

Maritime Freight Rates Act
I want to see this matter handled in a way that will provide the best possible discussion and the greatest benefits to the maritimes. This act should be sent to the committee which is to discuss the national freight rates structure. Every time there is an increase in freight rates there is a disturbance of the base set in 1927 by the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Every time there is an increase in rates an additional tariff is placed against goods from the maritimes moving into the central provinces. That is what happens when there is no compensating increase in the rebates allowed under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. If that policy is followed long enough the products of the maritime provinces will be debarred from the markets of central Canada.
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) indicated quite clearly just what happens when the rate is increased as it has been. He told us that the rate on potatoes is now so high that it is impossible to market that product in central Canada. It is faced with a tariff in the form of increased freight rates which have been imposed during the last five or six years in particular.
I am going to vote against this amendment because I do not want to see the discussion on the Maritime Freight Rates Act divorced from the general discussion of freight rates. Both matters should be in the same committee. I should like to see the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) indicate that he does not think it wise to have this happen and agree to withdraw his amendment, so the Maritime Freight Rates Act and all its implications may be discussed along with the general freight rates structure. By having the whole picture before it the committee will be able to arrive at a proper decision.
If the minister will assure us that can be done, then there is no necessity for the amendment. I suggest to the hon. member for Cumberland that he consider again the advisability of divorcing this bill from the main committee. These questions cannot be separated. If we divorce the discussion of this bill from the main committee all that will happen will be a confirmation of the principle. It is not the principle that is wrong, it is the application of that principle over the years as rates have changed from time to time.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, as I listened this afternoon to the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) and the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) I felt that I was back in 1947 when Newfoundland was discussing the question of confederation with Canada. The words that were used then could very well be used today. It

is interesting to look at the discussion that took place in 1867 and compare it with the discussion that is taking place today. It will be quite easy to see the two streams of thought that were running side by side. Apparently that thinking is still going on in the maritime provinces, the same type of thinking that went on when they were discussing the question of joining with Upper Canada and Lower Canada.
It is interesting to try to get the reason for that. After listening to the two senior members it is easy to understand how the problems that faced the maritime provinces back in 1867 were the same which faced Newfoundland in 1947 and 1948. Having heard some of this history I started to delve deeper into it, and I came to the famous Duncan report which has been referred to. The Duncan commission was set up by P.C. 505 dated April 7, 1926. The prime minister referred to therein is the late Mr. Mackenzie King. The following paragraph appears in that order in council:
The Prime Minister observes that it is most undesirable that any section of the people of the maritime provinces should entertain the opinion that their interests are being knowingly prejudiced, and that the public interest requires that every occasion for the existence of a feeling of grievance should, if possible, be removed.
That was the foundation of the famous Duncan commission report which has been recognized by the maritimes and now by Newfoundland as the cornerstone of their Magna Carta in so far as the rest of Canada is concerned. After hearing the hon. member for Queens speak this afternoon I looked over the report of that commission, and I found the following at page 20:
We think, however, that a balanced study of the events and pronouncements prior to confederation, and at its consummation, confirms the representations submitted to us on behalf of the maritime governments in regard to the ultimate construction of the railway, viz:
(a)	That leading Canadian statesmen in urging the adherence of the maritime provinces to confederation defined the purposes of the railroad to be
(i)	A means of affording to Canadian merchandise, and to Canada herself in times of national and imperial need, an outlet and inlet on the Atlantic ocean-available all the year round-and
(ii)	To afford to maritime merchants, traders and manufacturers, a market of several millions of people instead of their being restricted to the small and scattered populations of the maritimes themselves, particularly in the light of the disturbance with which their trade was threatened as the result of the discontinuance by the United States of the reciprocal arrangements that had prevailed.
(b)	That strategic considerations determined the actual course of the line-making it many miles . . . longer than was necessary-if the only consideration had been "to connect the cities of the maritime provinces with those of the St. Lawrence."

Then I come to the last and most important paragraph. It reads:
(c)	That to the extent that commercial considerations were subordinate to national, imperial and strategic considerations, the cost would be borne by the dominion and not by the traffic that might pass over the line.
That referred to the Intercolonial railway, and the Intercolonial railway line was the major line to the maritime provinces at that time. From the point of view of history, going back to the 1867 talks these were the words of Sir John A. Macdonald:
I don't hesitate to say that with respect to the Intercolonial railway it is understood by the people of Canada (Ontario and Quebec) that it can only be built as a means of political union for the colonies. It cannot be denied that the railway, as a commercial enterprise, would be of comparatively little commercial advantage to the people of Canada.
I should also like to refer to the words of Sir Alexander Galt at the same conference. He said:
The railway is not to be looked upon as a question of cost; but as a bond of union that will unite us in peace and in time of need.
That is the basis of the Duncan report. That is the basis of the claim that has had the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) and the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) on their feet this afternoon speaking in such strong fashion. That is the basis of the attitude of all maritimers and of the newest part of the maritimes in joining this particular battle. Equalization has been explained to us today by the minister; but whether or not we agree with his ideas about equalization all this railway legislation means only one thing, that the people of central Canada, meaning the two central provinces of Ontario and Quebec, are not going to be pinched in any way by railway rates because competition with trucks there is such that the rates will not be raised.
The western provinces are going to have their rates reduced, and I presume that is why western members are so satisfied with this legislation. The railways will not absorb increased costs, and there is no one else to whom to pass them on but the maritimes. I have always had a good opinion of the speeches of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) but tonight he seemed to me to get completely off the track, and I do not mean the railway track. He more or less suggested that we had to look to the bill. The bill itself does not mean a thing. The principles that we are talking about have nothing at all to do with the bill before us this evening, at least in the wording that has been submitted to us. The hon. member said, if I remember rightly, that he was not going to vote for the amendment because it
Maritime Freight Rates Act took away power to deal with all matters, and moreover the special committee would not be handling it.
I would ask the hon. member to read the amendment. It is very clear. It reads:
That the said bill be not now read the second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the special committee on railway legislation . . .
That is very positive. There is only one special committee that has been referred to; that is the committee the minister proposes to set up in connection with railway legislation.


Clarence Gillis: No.


Major James William Coldwell: No, it is changed.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Well, the principle is the same. I do not see any difference.


Clarence Gillis: Who is off the track now?


Gordon Francis Higgins: Possibly I may be a little bit wrong in my interpretation. I may not have heard that particular part. At all events, the final part of the amendment of the hon. member for Cumberland reads:
. . . they shall also have power to examine and report upon the extent to which the benefits conferred by the Maritime Freight Rates Act are affected by Canadian transportation policy.
The policy that is now being enunciated as a result of the Turgeon report is suggested as a national policy for Canada. The railway bills that are now being put before the house are a part of that policy. The amendments affecting freight rates are supposed to be part of the implementation of the Turgeon report. There have been various explanations given as to why there is not much interest in some parts of the house in these particular measures. I have heard that the question of equalization of rates is to be referred to the board of transport commissioners, and they are to make a ruling. I have heard that they are to interpret that ruling, that we need not have any worry about the matter, that it is none of our business how the board of transport commissioners interprets the ruling, and that if it is adverse to the maritimes then a certain body of this house will see to it that- the ruling is corrected. To me that seems so much poppycock.
As I say, that has been suggested to me, and I hope that when the minister replies, as I believe he will, he will tell us that it is nonsense or that such a proposition has been put forward and that it is correct. As the minister said today, this is probably one of the most important bills that has been brought before the house for a long time. It means so much to the maritimes, so much to the newest part of the maritimes, the province of Newfoundland. It is a question of

Maritime Freight Rates Act life or death as far as the industries of Newfoundland are concerned. We make no apology to anybody for the vehemence with which we speak on this matter because, as has been said in the house in the last couple of days, if the rates submitted to the board of transport commissioners are in fact -and the minister would not deny it-likely to be increased by over 100 per cent in certain cases, then the remaining industries of that part of the maritimes known as Newfoundland are going to be completely wiped out. For that reason I endorse completely, wholeheartedly and in every way the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cumberland.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps rather bold for one who does not hail from the maritimes to rush in, but at any rate it is not exactly a case of rushing in where angels fear to tread because the angels are treading and I shall only be joining them. I shall take only a few minutes. The reason I rise is that I think it is a matter of concern not only to the maritimes but to all of us that there shall not be left a sense of injustice on the part of an element in this community whom we all respect and like.
As for this bill, it seems to me that it is insignificant. You have only to read the explanatory note to see that this bill is merely a little tidying-up operation. It does not change anything. It does not do anything. It is just like a feather duster going over the surface when actually you want something in the nature of a drastic operation. According to the explanatory note, all this bill does is to confirm the present practice of the board of transport commissioners. In other words, if there is a problem this bill does not purport to deal with it. It just puts a legal imprimatur on something which is already being done.
Actually, so far as I can understand it, there is a problem. The extent of the problem we are not very certain about as yet. Some of our fellow members are greatly alarmed about it. They think the proposed rates are going to be ruinous to them. As I understand it the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) says: Do not worry about these figures that are put out. They may not be nearly as bad as you think. He suggests: Perhaps you are crying before you are hurt.
All right. If it should turn out that way, well and good. On the other hand we have seen a great deal of evidence here already to indicate that people are going to be hurt For that reason I hope this amendment may carry, whereby this problem can at least have full consideration given it by a competent committee.

I have looked back over the two reports, the names of which are so well known; the Sir Andrew Rae Duncan report and the Sir Thomas White report. In the Duncan report it is made quite clear just why -that 20 per cent figure was put in the act. Up to 1912, as I understand it, the maritimes felt they had had a reasonably fair deal. Between 1912 and 1926 railway rates in the maritimes had risen from an index figure of 100 to 192 whereas in the rest of the country they had risen from 100 to 155. By applying the 20 per cent reduction at that time, an equality was arrived at. Since 1926 obviously there have been substantial increases in rates. It is also obvious even to one whose knowledge of mathematics is as small as mine that the application of the original 20 per cent, as the increases have grown broader, will not produce the same equality it produced in 1926.
It would therefore appear on the face of it that, in all probability, there is a problem which should be dealt with. Why we cannot now take steps whereby that problem can be dealt with is something that passes my comprehension. This piffling little bill we have before us, self-confessed, does nothing. As I say, if there is something to be done, then why can we not deal with it?
Just as an indication of the spirit in which I think this thing should be approached I should like to read a short paragraph from the Duncan report in 1926. I read briefly from page 44, under the heading "Conclusion":
We have approached consideration of the claims and problems of the maritime provinces, not from the point of view of finding palliatives-
I want to stop there for a moment to stress that word "palliatives". My feeling is that it is all wrong to deal in palliatives and that we should try to face squarely whatever problem there is and deal with it not by way of palliatives but on principle. I continue:
__for the dissatisfaction and political unrest which
have been prevailing in that part of the dominion, but with an endeavour to apply equitable correct tion where we have found their claims to be, in our opinion, well founded, and practical solutions- or the basis of practical solutions-where we have found a set of conditions which call for remedy and it was within our terms of reference, broadly interpreted, to deal with them.
That is the spirit that I believe should be adopted now. I think it is the spirit every decent Canadian will wish to have applied. I cannot believe that we should tolerate a situation where, as I said a moment ago, men whom we respect greatly stand up in this house and say with great conviction and cogency that they are suffering injustices and have been doing so for many years.
I might give another reason, not such a serious reason but one which I put forward;

that is, that it is highly desirable to bring about a spirit of contentment in the maritimes. Otherwise they are going to come up here and take all the good jobs away from us. No one in the central provinces will have a good job, because the maritimers will come and take them all.
But speaking seriously again, I feel we have no right whatever to tolerate a situation in which injustice prevails or where there is even the suspicion that injustice is being tolerated.
I should like to say just a word with regard to this amendment before I sit down. I always follow with respect what the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) says, but tonight I could not agree with him. I am going to accuse him of becoming not a sea lawyer or a Philadelphia lawyer but a House of Commons lawyer. I suggest that tonight he was making a distinction which I at any rate could not follow. I suggest to him that if this resolution carries and the bill goes to a standing committee, after all it will De a committee of the same kind of people that are on the special committee. If it goes to the committee with these wide terms of reference, and if that committee reaches conclusions, there is nothing in the world to prevent this house, if it sees fit, adopting those conclusions, just as it could adopt the conclusions of the special committee. I cannot follow him there. If this resolution should pass, its terms are fairly broad. I will not read them again. The committee has wide power. The men on that committee will be just the same kind of men as those on the special committee; and maybe they will be better men. Why their views should not carry weight if they should decide that something should be done, I do not know. As I take my seat, again I say that it seems to me the government might have something better to do than bring forward this piffling little bill that does not mean a thing and does not even in its terms suggest that it is an approach to dealing with a question which has extremely serious implications.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, as the representative of a maritime constituency I feel obligated to speak on this amendment, for important reasons. I have a feeling that the importance of this whole principle of maritime freight rates is not sufficiently recognized by this house. In order that it should be better understood, or put in its proper light, I think it is perhaps necessary for me to go back a good number of years to try to illustrate why the principle of maritime freight rates was ever brought into being.
Maritime Freight Rates Act
In 1864 a group of men representing what are now the four maritime provinces met in my constituency with the idea of forming those four colonies, as they were then, into a country. It was the logical and obvious thing to do, because the four maritime provinces were a natural economic unit. If they were united into one or were confederated, they would be in a position to carry on trade with their natural markets, which are the eastern United States; and they would be in a position to make tariffs, impose excise taxes and so on with respect to their economy, which would allow their economy to prosper as it was prospering up to confederation. As the result of a delegation from what was then the Canadian colonies, Upper and Lower Canada, that original idea was cast to one side and the idea of a larger confederation was entered upon.
The second idea was immediately taken up by Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Prince Edward Island did not accept it until six years later, and Newfoundland not until quite recently. The maritime provinces recognized that when they forfeited control over their own economy they would be at the mercy of laws brought into being by a larger legislative body in Ottawa, which would affect their economy. Before entering into that confederation, therefore, they made certain they had assurances that their interests would be protected and that they would be put in a position to successfully compete in the markets of central Canada. The population of the maritimes relative to that of central Canada, and its economy relative to that of central Canada, are so small that the markets of central Canada are much more important to the maritimes than the markets of the maritimes are to central Canada. The freight rates which exist between those two areas are of proportionately greater importance to the maritimes than they are to central Canada.
In an attempt to allow the maritimes to compete successfully in the markets of central Canada the principle of the Maritime Freight Rates Act was introduced. In that connection I should like to read from the preamble to that act. It can be found at page 228 of the report of the royal commission on transportation, and reads as follows: Whereas the royal commission on maritime claims by its report, dated September 23, 1926, has, in effect, advised that a balanced study of the events and pronouncements prior to confederation, and at its consummation, and of the lower level of rates which prevailed on the Intercolonial system prior to 1912, has in its opinion confirmed the representations submitted to the commission on behalf of the maritime provinces, namely, that the Intercolonial Railway was designed, among other things, to give to Canada in times of national and imperial need an outlet and inlet on the Atlantic Ocean, and to

Maritime Freight Rates Act
afford to maritime merchants, traders and manufacturers the larger market of the whole Canadian people instead of the restricted market of the mari-times themselves, also that strategic considerations determined a longer route than was actually necessary, and therefore that to the extent that commercial considerations were subordinated to national, imperial and strategic conditions, the cost of the railway should be borne by the dominion, and not by the traffic which might pass over the line;
In that connection the adjustment, which was the Maritime Freight Rates Act, was brought into being. But even under those conditions the maritime producer was not on an equal basis with the producer in central Canada with regard to the markets of central Canada. The result was that when we had these across the board percentage increases in rates, the discrimination was increased percentage-wise. This is easily understood because actually the increases were a geometric progression, so the greater the increase the greater the difference and the greater the discrimination. The maritime producer has been almost completely squeezed out of the markets of central Canada.
In addition, the situation is aggravated by the fact that the overseas markets for the primary products of the maritime producer have to a great extent been lost. The markets for pit props in Great Britain, apples in Great Britain, potatoes in the United States and fish in Spain are examples of this. It is interesting to note that this type of situation is recognized in the United States and something is done about it. It has been pointed out that the Canadian practice differs from that in the United States, where the interstate commerce commission and the railways provide for exceptions to uniform percentage increases in order to lessen the impact of freight rate increases. That is a principle which I believe should be recognized at this time. This is a very important matter, and one of vital importance to the people of the maritimes. For that reason it is of vital importance to all of Canada. It is not wise for us to assume that Canada as a whole can prosper when one part of her economy is suffering and is not prospering. After all, if the entire country is not prosperous the nation cannot prosper. We must be strong from coast to coast, and every section of our economy must be sound.
Some people have the impression that we in the maritimes are just taking up valuable time of this house to talk about something that is of parochial concern. This is a problem of national importance, and the people in the maritimes recognize that fact. This is illustrated by a letter which I received a few minutes ago from the Charlottetown


board of trade which mentions this freight rate problem. It reads in part as follows:
Now therefore be It resolved that this Charlottetown Board of Trade goes on record as strongly opposing any freight rate equalization plan that would adversely affect the existing maritime freight rate structure, unless it can be shown that there can be effected a basis which would not have any detrimental repercussions on maritime economy, and urges that no legislative action be taken that would permit any increase in the existing maritime structure in order to give effect to any freight rate equalization plan.


George Clyde Nowlan: should like to speak briefly on this amendment before the debate closes. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) opened this discussion so effectively this afternoon, and put so many quotations on the record concerning the historical background of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, that I do not propose to repeat many of the matters which otherwise would have to be put on the record.
When one looks at the report of the Duncan commission, Mr. Speaker, there is perhaps one sentence that should be placed upon the records of this house. It is to be found on page 21 of the report of that commission and reads as follows:
On the broader question, however, of the incidence of the existing rates as a whole upon industry and employment in the maritimes, we have come very definitely to the conclusion that the rate structure as it has been altered since 1912 has placed upon the trade and commerce of the maritime provinces (a) a burden which, as we have read the pronouncement and obligations undertaken at confederation, it was never intended it should bear, and (b) a burden which is, in fact, responsible in very considerable measure for depressing abnormally in the maritimes today business and enterprise which had originated and developed before 1912 on the basis and faith of the rate structure as it then stood.
That is the finding of the Duncan commission, and as a result of that finding the Maritime Freight Rates Act was introduced. It has been said that it was to compensate for this finding made by the commission and, Mr. Speaker, I think it did compensate for it. The Maritime Freight Rates Act, as enacted in this house in 1927, accomplished a great deal for the maritime provinces and went a considerable distance in rectifying the injustices and evils the Duncan commission had found. But the trouble with the Maritime Freight Rates Act was, and is, that it took the rates that applied in 1927 and froze them; it set up new rates and froze them at that level, subject to rises in case of increased costs. The rates remained constant, at least for many years, but conditions changed. You got a reduction through competition in other places; you got lower rates in other parts of Canada because of lake, water and truck

competition; but the maritime rates, having been fixed at that level, remained constant and got no benefit from the act.
Subsequently, as was pointed out by the minister this afternoon, in 1947 the railways received horizontal increases across the board. The maritime freight rate structure had to absorb the increases, less the statutory deduction of 20 per cent. Thereafter the rates were increased materially. Now you have the so-called or suggested national policy which is going to do something else to the freight rate structure of the maritimes. That is why those of us who are speaking in support of this amendment suggest that the time has come when we should revise the whole basis of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, which was excellent in 1927, which as I say did accomplish much, but which is now largely outmoded because of changing conditions. We say that the principle of the act should be studied and changed. Usually I can agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), if not entirely at least with a considerable sense of approval, but I cannot do that with the argument he has advanced tonight.
We have, as I said, an amendment to the Maritime Freight Rates Act which is trifling, Mr. Speaker. Actually it is not required at all. The royal commission say that what is proposed in this legislation has been in effect for years. All the government is asking this house to do is give statutory approval to a practice which has developed throughout the years and which would continue regardless of the passing of this legislation. That is all that is contained in the bill. Personally, and I think I am speaking for most of those who are in favour of the amendment, I would not care if the bill never went through. It would not make any difference to the maritime provinces. They would be in the same position they are in now if the bill never passed. What we are saying, and what this amendment suggests and asks this house to do, is that the contents of the bill be sent to a standing committee with instructions to consider the whole background of the act, to bring documents, to bring people to testify, to study it, and to make a report; in other words put life back into the veins of the organization which was created in 1927; to revive it, to bring it up in keeping with existing conditions. That can be done only by an extensive study of the act. Without getting involved in an argument on the rules-I am prepared to take the opinion of the hon. member for Cape Breton South on that because he has been here much longer than I have and knows the rules much better than I do-if the bill respecting the Maritime
Maritime Freight Rates Act Freight Rates Act were referred to the committee, as was originally proposed by the minister, and someone in that committee brought up another proposed amendment to the act the chairman would be bound to say: "We are bound by the terms of the bill that we are considering. The fact is that this bill deals only with the inclusion of lake traffic, and we have no power to make a general study of the freight rates act". I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that would be the ruling of the chairman, and I believe that ruling would be right. Therefore it would be impossible to give any consideration to the things we want to have considered unless this house gives the committee instructions to consider them.
To be technical, it might be a little more efficient if the instructions were given to the same committee. I am not going to argue about that. The main thing is that some committee should be given instructions to consider the background of this act, to study it, and to report. Without such an amendment as is now before the house such a study is impossible. That is what we require now. That is why the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) moved his amendment, and that is certainly why I am supporting it.
There are scores of reasons one could advance and examples one could give to show how the act is outmoded. All one has to do is look at the report of the Turgeon commission. If you start at page 230 you will find suggestions as to amendments to this act. These suggestions, Mr. Speaker, are [DOT]not made by irresponsible individuals but largely by the governments of the maritime provinces', and in some cases by maritime boards of trade; in others, by the government of New Brunswick, a government not unknown to this government; by the government of the province of Nova Scotia, and the government of the province of Prince Edward Island. I believe also, although on this I am not certain, that the government of Newfoundland made recommendations. They are all set forth on pages 230, 231, 232 and 233. Out of all these suggestions, Mr. Speaker, what do we get? We get the bill that is before us tonight to approve of a practice which has been in effect since 1927. That is all that grew out of the recommendations made to this royal commission by the three maritime governments and boards of trade.
I appreciate the fact that whoever closes this debate will say: What you are asking for is impossible. Do you not realize that you had a royal commission to study this? Do you not realize that the royal commission made a report? Why should you suggest

Maritime Freight Rates Act now that we reopen the whole subject? That is the obvious answer that can be thrown across the house at us. I am prepared to accept that answer, Mr. Speaker, and refute it because, without casting any reflection upon the royal commission, when a royal commission considers as many representations as that commission is supposed to have considered-whether they did or not-from the responsible bodies which proposed them, and ignores them all except one, and that the most trifling, which never was proposed by governments, then I suggest that the supreme court of this land, this parliament, has a direct responsibility here which we are asking it to invoke. We are appealing to its jurisdiction in the matter.
I am not going to go over the changes that were suggested. They cover three or four pages. I shall just mention four. They were asked to give wider powers to the board of transport commissioners. One would think that would be a reasonable request, Mr. Speaker. The minister, and I think quite properly, this afternoon in another debate extolled the board of transport commissioners. He spoke about its qualities, its powers and the ability of its members. The governments of the maritimes asked that the board be given wider powers. The commission refused to give it any additional powers, Some of the governments asked that the geographic area embraced within the act be extended. That was refused. In that connection I should like to point out to the house that the benefits of the act, the so-called preferred areas, apply only to goods originating in the maritimes. It does not apply only to * those, but for the sake of this argument it applies only to goods originating in the maritimes and shipped to other places in Canada. You will find from reading the Duncan report that this is based on the fact that when we entered confederation the reciprocal treaty with the United States had been abrogated and our trade with that country was very, very small. Actually today, Mr. Speaker, our trade in the maritimes with the United States is substantial, at least in many products. Fresh fish products go in large quantities to the markets of New England. We ship apples and apple products to the United States market. In a consideration of this act I should like to have some study given to the enlargement of its principles to include goods being shipped to United States markets as well as the markets of Toronto and Montreal. We probably ship more to the United States, and I do not see any reason why the benefits of the act should not be increased to that extent.


Then another matter was referred to the commission, one of particular importance to my own constituency. The maritime board of trade recommended that this act should be made to apply to the shipments of the Princess Helene steamship service connecting Digby and Saint John. That recommendation was made unanimously by the three maritime provinces. It was concurred in and accepted by the two railways. It was refused by the commission. I would like to know why. Some in this house are practising lawyers, and they know that when they come before a court and both sides have agreed, they have a consent judgment and it usually does not require a great deal of argument before that consent judgment is obtained, Here we have this consent judgment, this request by the provinces supported by the railways, refused by the commission. Freight moving over the Canadian Pacific railway to Saint John and then going across to the Annapolis valley does not get the benefit of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. It gets that benefit when it goes to Newfoundland. Some of us will remember the debate which took place two years ago, when the matter was discussed. It gets the rate when it goes to Prince Edward Island or to any other province, except in a movement across the bay of Fundy. Apparently the reason for this refusal is that if it were given to them, then perhaps other steamships would ask that it be extended. At page 235 of the report we find this:
If an extension of the act were made in this case it would lead to the demand for a similar concession in favour of the steamship services operating from point to point within the area, and this would enlarge the scope of the act beyond, not only what was originally intended, but what is required.
As a matter of fact there are no other steamships operating within that area, or serving the railways, which could make application. I think this would be concurred in by everyone who knows that geographic location.
Reference was made this afternoon and also yesterday to Rand Matheson. I have a statement by Mr. Matheson to the Annapolis valley boards of trade three months ago in which he said the Annapolis valley has the highest freight rate in the maritime provinces. And we in the maritime provinces think our freight rates are fairly high in comparison with the rest of Canada. One reason our rates are high is the fact that we do not get the benefit of the Maritime Freight Rates Act on goods coming into the Annapolis valley via the Canadian Pacific railway. I hope to see the time when the Canadian Pacific will be given the rights and will acquire the facilities so it can move into the Annapolis valley, across the bay of Fundy. I believe that is essential to the

development and prosperity of western Nova Scotia. Until that time comes, what we do require is that the benefits of this act be given in respect of goods which cross the bay from the C.P.R. in Saint John to the subsidiary serving the Annapolis valley.
Those are some of the changes we think should be considered. That is why we are asking that the committee consider the matter tonight. After referring to the disabilities under which the maritime provinces suffered, the Duncan commission states this, at page 9:
But reasonable balance is within accomplishment if there be periodic stocktaking.
I repeat the words "if there be periodic stocktaking". That statement of the Duncan commission is as true in 1951 as it was in 1927. All we are asking now, after a period of twenty-five years, is an opportunity to have another periodic stocktaking so that the incidence of this act may be brought up to date and adjusted to conditions which obtain today, and which have changed so materially since that time.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, as another member from the maritime provinces I should like to say a few words tonight. Although I have spoken twice, there are one or two matters I should like to point out at this time in connection with Newfoundland.
Hon. members may not know this, but in the terms of union with Newfoundland that province was given the benefit of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Although I recognize the sincerity of the minister in regard to this subject, on that occasion a mistake was made, so that when Newfoundland protested and brought its claim before the board dealing with freight rates it was found that it had been charged excess rates to the extent of $4 million. It seems to me if that could be done between 1949 and 1950 it could still be done. That is one reason why I feel it is necessary that this matter be considered by a committee of the house, so that representatives of the maritime provinces and of Newfoundland could be present to see that a better bargain is given.
Hon. members must know that after union with Canada the secondary industries of Newfoundland suffered considerably. Some of them have been wiped out. There has been a revolution in the trade of Newfoundland. Formerly we dealt principally with the United Kingdom and the United States, though in later years trade with Canada had been increasing. But it was a one-sided trade.
Maritime Freight Rates Act
I would say that in the year before confederation trade with Canada amounted to about $60 million, of which about $55 million was from Canada to Newfoundland and $5 million from Newfoundland to Canada. Today the picture is this, that over $100 million of goods is coming from the other nine provinces, and still only $10 million from Newfoundland to the nine provinces.
If the freight rates are going to be increased on that quantity of goods it will bring about a considerable addition to the cost of living in Newfoundland, which at the present time is higher than in Canada. Before confederation we were promised that after confederation the cost of living would go down. I believe the base upon which the figure for the cost of living in Canada was computed was higher as applied to Newfoundland than as applied to the rest of Canada by about 30 per cent. The cost of living is still that much higher in Newfoundland,
It has been pointed out very well by the junior member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) that this across the board percentage increase in freight rates has made a difference in the maritime freight rates structure, so that the rate is not the same as it was in 1927 in comparison with the Ontario freight rate. The gap between the maritime and Ontario freight rates in 1927 was much less than the gap between those two rates today. The maritime people consider that an injustice, and suggest it is one of the subjects which should be considered by the committee. It seems to me this is a proper time to protect the maritimes in regard to freight rates. Here we are considering an amendment to the Maritime Freight Rates Act, which was introduced and passed by parliament as a consequence of the Duncan report. If there is going to be further protection, then I am sure members from the maritime provinces who support the government must agree that this is the proper time to have the protection the maritime people would wish to have inserted in the Maritime Freight Rates Act. They have sat silent while this discussion has gone on for three days, except for the contribution by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey), which was so highly praised today by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). I feel sure, however, that the remaining members from the maritime provinces must feel some qualms about the subject we have been discussing. If they support the proposition we have been putting forward, they will find nothing but gratitude from the people they represent.

Maritime Freight Rates Act


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would 'have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Catherwood:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Huffman). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on railway legislation.


Alphonse Fournier: the second reading of Bill No. 8, to amend the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act.


Howard Charles Green: Will the parliamentary assistant explain the bill, please?


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this is quite a simple bill. It has two objectives, one to increase the number of harbour commissioners from three to five, and the other to clear up any ambiguity as to whether or not compensation can be paid to them. The bill provides that compensation can be paid to the commissioners provided approval is obtained from the governor in council. I might say that this is one of the great waterways of Canada. Business has increased tremendously and it is felt that an increase in the number of commissioners would greatly broaden the experience of the board.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize the words just used by the parliamentary assistant when he said this is one of the great waterways of Canada. The area involved is that of the north arm of the Fraser river which, as most hon. members know, forms the southern boundary of the city of Vancouver, also of the municipality of Burnaby and, I believe, the northern boundary of the municipality of Richmond. As the city of Vancouver has grown, many of the sawmills and other industries have moved from an inlet in our city known as False creek around to the north arm of the Fraser river, and there is now a great deal of business done
[Mr. Browne (St. John's West' .1

on that north arm. Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of logs-in fact, I would not be surprised if at times there are millions of dollars worth-are tied up in the north arm. There are many tugs plying the waters and the area is now an extremely important industrial one, but the growth has really only begun. It will become more and more important as time goes on.
If this change in the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act will be of benefit to the industries established in that area, to the city of Vancouver and the other municipalities, then, of course, we are heartily in favour of the measure; and may I say that I believe it is beneficial. But when the bill comes into the committee stage I would ask the parliamentary assistant to give us some details of the plan. Why is the number of commissioners being increased from three to five? Is it in order that industries may be represented on the commission, or just what is the purpose?
In addition, this bill gives one the opportunity to point out to the government the intolerable situation which exists on this waterway which the parliamentary assistant himself has just said is one of the great waterways of Canada. Across that waterway we have an old low-level bridge-and it is many years old-which has to be opened for tugs many times a day. It is a great nuisance and a great handicap in the further development of the area. It is not only a great handicap in the industrial development of the area; in addition, the Vancouver international airport lies across that bridge. Everyone going from the city of Vancouver to the airport or vice versa is obliged to go over that bridge. If the bridge is open they cannot get across. There you have perhaps the most important airport in Canada with the bottleneck of this old bridge. It might easily happen that one day a boat may knock out a span of that bridge; then all this traffic will be held up. People will have to go across this waterway by ferry, or in some other way. We had a similar experience with the bridge over the second narrows in Vancouver harbour. The lift span originally was located in the wrong place, and one fine day a freighter came in, ran into another span and knocked it out. The bridge was out of commission for many months. That may well happen with this old bridge which is known as the Marpole bridge.
The reason I stress this matter this evening is that I believe the dominion government is largely responsible for the failure to replace that bridge. For many years now there has been a failure to reach agreement among the city of Vancouver, the province of British Columbia and the dominion government. I
North Fraser Harbour Commission have here a press dispatch dated September 18, 1946, over five years ago, which reads as
follows:
Marpole Span Cost Split Three Ways Ottawa to Aid City on Bridge to Airport
The federal government will share in the cost of a new high level bridge at Marpole-to serve the municipal airport-with the city and Richmond, Reconstruction Minister C. D. Howe told city council at a private meeting this morning.
A report covering the proposed location, type and clearance of the span is to be prepared by civic, provincial and dominion engineers.
Then I have a dispatch here of November, 1947:
British Columbia Seeks New Span Ottawa Parley on Fraser Arm Bridge
Victoria, Nov. 21-Move to push ahead with the project for a multi-million dollar high-level bridge over the north arm of the Fraser river to Lulu island was revealed here today when Public Works Minister E. C. Carson said he will fly to Ottawa Saturday to discuss the bridge scheme with Reconstruction Minister Howe.
Mr. Carson will put before the federal minister a report compiled by a special committee of Vancouver, provincial and dominion engineers.
The report favours the building of the bridge from the end of Oak street, across the channel to Lulu island, with a cloverleaf sweeping to the right across a small bridge onto Sea island.
There has been a similar failure to get action right down through the intervening years: 1948, 1949, 1950 and now down to October, 1951. I have here an editorial from the Vancouver Sun which, as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) knows, is a strong supporter of the government. This editorial is dated October 3, 1951. It is headed "Surly, as Usual" and it refers to the Vancouver airport. There is trouble now about the dominion taking over the Vancouver airport. But in dealing with the airport the editorial refers to several other projects which have been held up by the dominion. In dealing with this bridge it says:
Oak street bridge:	The city and the provincial
government propose to put up one-third each of the probable $7 million cost of a new high-level span over the navigable Fraser to provide modern access to the international airport and open a new southern exit from the city. Rather than put up its share, Ottawa offers $400,000 towards rebuilding the inadequate low-level bridge at Marpole.
The Sun may not have the facts exactly right in their statement of what Ottawa is prepared to do, but certainly we seem to be no further ahead now than we were five years ago, in 1946. They have just been fooling around with this bridge. If it had been a bridge over the Ottawa river or over the St. Lawrence river it would have been built four and a half years ago.


Mr, Fournier (Hull):: Do not say that to the people of Pontiac.


Howard Charles Green: There are not half a million people in the vicinity of Pontiac, but there

North Fraser Harbour Commission are in the vicinity of this bridge to which I refer, and they are all being seriously handicapped by the failure to get something done about putting in a high-level bridge. As I said before, this is an intolerable situation. While the bill now before the house may help the north Fraser area, it is just a drop in the bucket compared to the help that would follow from the erection of a high-level bridge. I would appeal to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) under whose department this matter comes, of course, to look into this situation without delay. I hope we shall not have to wait for another four or five years before the dominion government realizes that something has to be done about putting a high level bridge across the north arm of the Fraser river.


Alphonse Fournier: I would certainly answer the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), but I know I would be out of order. I did not interrupt him, but he has been out of order for the last five minutes. On some other occasion if he wants to put the same question, I shall give him all the facts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Commissioners.
Howard Charles Green: Wide latitude is allowed in the discussion on the first section of the bill.


Alphonse Fournier: I wish the member would follow the rules, even in committee. It is all right to have a discussion on second reading, but in committee the discussion must be relevant to the item. I hope we are not going to speak about all the problems of Vancouver and British Columbia at this stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We want a bridge at
Winnipeg, too.


Howard Charles Green: As you know, latitude is given in discussing the first section of a bill. Here is a bill calling for changes in the set-up of the North Fraser harbour commission. In this first section there is provision for increasing the number of commissioners from three to five. I want to know why the number is being increased. I was very much in earnest when, on second reading of the bill, I pointed out that this situation is extremely serious. I hope the Minister of Public Works will explain to the committee why there has been this delay in doing something about the bridge, because nothing affects the work of the North Fraser harbour commission-


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Order.


Howard Charles Green: Get up and raise your point of order, if you have one. Nothing affects the work of the North Fraser harbour commission more than the problems they encounter because of this low-level bridge. The matter is not a joke.


Alphonse Fournier: I never joke when I have a discussion with the hon. gentleman. I am not fully informed on this question. The hon. member has quoted the Vancouver Sun, reporting what the Minister of Trade and Commerce is supposed to have said. He has not mentioned my name, and I was waiting to see if he would get something on me. I have not heard anything yet. If I have not committed myself, I do not think I should give out government policy which has not been completely decided. I would rather wait and announce government policy in the usual way. Do you not think -that is satisfactory?


Howard Charles Green: Will there be a chance of an announcement at an early date, because this situation is really serious.


Alphonse Fournier: I have heard about this case. I understand that the need is there. The Department of Public Works cannot do everything the same day, the same month or the- same year. We have many public works going on all over the country, and no one realizes the trouble I am having to get steel. If that is a high-level bridge it will need steel, and just the thought of it makes me shiver.


Howard Charles Green: I have another clipping here in which the minister of public works for British Columbia states that steel is available, so there would be no trouble about that. The province and the city are prepared to go ahead with their share, and I think the delay is largely, not altogether but largely, the fault of the dominion government. I hope the Minister of Public Works will look into the situation right away, and perhaps let us have an announcement before the end of this session.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, that is pressing me a little too much. I certainly will take it into consideration, and I shall speak about it in the cabinet. I do not like to be pressed so that I will have to give a decision on a $7 million job when materials-


Howard Charles Green: Have you not been thinking about it for the last five years?


Alphonse Fournier: Well, not only about that, but also many other things. My estimates cover more than that bridge. I believe that if the two of us discussed this outside the house there would not be the publicity, and I could explain why we cannot go ahead

with projects of this nature. It is government policy, supported by the opposition, that our defence program shall come first; and it takes up a large portion of the materials that would go normally into civilian use. I know the hon. member is quite reasonable, even when we discuss Vancouver matters. I believe that, after some time, we would come to some agreement about this bridge.


Mr. Laing:: I believe a considerable amount of latitude has been permitted other people in discussing this matter, so I hope it will be extended to me. There seems to be a short memory here in discussing this bridge. A year ago the representatives of the provincial government and the city attended in Ottawa to make representations toward the construction of a bridge with federal participation. The minister who has just spoken met that delegation. They said they would go back and apportion their contribution between them, then return to the federal government. Mr. Chairman, they have not been back yet.
The primary responsibility for the particular bridge of which the member speaks- of course he was out of order and so am I, because it has very little if any relationship to the bill we are discussing-was accepted under a provincial statute in 1922. He is aware that the full responsibility for maintenance and reconstruction of that bridge is upon the provincial government. If the airport, which is now jointly owned by the city and the federal government, were to become solely a federal responsibility, then that aspect of the connecting link would change. We shall cross that bridge, I hope, when we come to it.
To return to the subject under discussion, I want first to compliment the parliamentary assistant. I believe this is the first bill he has taken for his minister. I have every confidence, which I know is shared by all hon. members of the house, that he will guide it well. The member for Vancouver-Quadra did not do a particularly good job of emphasizing the importance of that particular area. He represented it at one time, but he does not do so now, because I do. In that little river 35 per cent of the total log cut of the province passes. At the present time the payrolls on that river are about $35 million a year.


George Alexander Drew: We are quite in order now.


Arthur Laing: Yes, I am in order because it is a very important waterway. When the commission was first founded in 1913 the chief interest was the protection of the land from erosion. It was a matter of municipal lands then. All the industrial development has come since, and today there is not a 94699-36
North Fraser Harbour Commission single water lot left on that river. Values have gone up very much indeed. It is important therefore that the representatives on this board be taken not only from the municipality where river erosion is still of primary importance, but from the industries as well. I think that is in the minds of the minister and his assistant in the proposal to add two members to the commission.
Again I want to say how thankful I am for the introduction of this bill. I would not like to see us spend too much time dealing with such matters as bridge connections, and so on, which have little or nothing to do with the operation of the harbour board, though I will admit to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that the bridge opens thirty-seven times a day on the average and is a great hindrance to the operation of tugs, scows and logs going through that river. It is of very great importance to them; but the responsibility for that bridge, I reiterate, was accepted one hundred per cent by the provincial government in 1922. That goes back to a legal case. My hon. friend should have as good a memory in respect of all affairs in Vancouver as I have, but he does not seem to have tonight. At one time Richmond operated these bridges. On a very dark night in 1919 a taxi coming from Woodward's Landing into Vancouver went through the Fraser avenue bridge. There was a lawsuit which I think would have bankrupted the municipality of Richmond had not the provincial government at that time come to their aid and said: "We will accept responsibility in respect of those connecting links." Thank you.


The Deputy Chairman:: Before any other hon. member speaks to this amendment perhaps I might have a word to say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: About the bridge?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Hon. members have indicated that while they were speaking they were somewhat out of order, particularly with respect to the building of a bridge. I therefore feel that it is my duty to remind hon. members that this is an amending bill, particularly to increase the number of commissioners and second to remunerate them. Therefore since one hon. member on the opposition side has had an opportunity to use the latitude which is provided in a discussion of clause 1, and since other hon. members on the government side have had an opportunity to offer explanations, I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks from now on to the clauses under discussion, unless unanimous consent is given to a wider discussion.

North Fraser Harbour Commission


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I have great interest in this bridge in spite of myself, and I am hoping you will allow me the same latitude that other hon. members have had, but I will be very brief.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I would certainly like to give the hon. member as much latitude as possible, but I think hon. members will agree that so far perhaps too much latitude has been afforded.


Howard Charles Green: No.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps I should not say it is rather annoying, but it puts the chairman in a very difficult position when he sits here presiding over the deliberations and hears an hon. member say: "Well, of course what I am saying now, sir, is out of order"; and then he carries on.


Howard Charles Green: I did not say that.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The rules exist for everybody. The chairman realizes that sometimes it is important for an hon. member to avail himself of what he considers to be an opportunity to put forward certain points. I think that has been done sufficiently by, I would say, the most interested parties, namely those who come from Vancouver. If the hon. member for Vancouver East felt that he should take advantage of the same latitude the other members from Vancouver have already enjoyed I would feel bound to let him go ahead, but I would think that it should be limited to that. I think the hon. member, who is most co-operative, will agree with me that we must now confine our remarks to the clause under discussion no matter how interesting it may be to discuss the bridge.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will of course bow to your ruling, but this is the first time that the relevancy of remarks has been put on a geographical basis.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I would certainly like to comment on that. I quite understand that when an hon. member becomes representative of one riding he represents the whole of Canada. I quite realize that, but it is not on that basis I have made my ruling. If I did that I would have seen to it that the rules were observed from the beginning, and there would not have been a single word said about that bridge. I hope hon. members will not make me bear the responsibility of allowing any longer a discussion which is admittedly out of order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a point that has been overlooked in discussing the relevancy of what has been put forward. After all, this is a proposal to increase a commission of three to a commission of
[The Deputy Chairman.]
five and to provide remuneration for the two extra commissioners-in fact, not only for the two extra commissioners, but for all the commissioners. Of course that immediately implies that there is some very substantial new responsibility falling upon this board. Naturally it would be very important for the members to know whether they are going to deal with this bridge or not, because if they are, then it is an added responsibility. If they are not, we have not heard anything yet, so far as I am aware, to explain why it is necessary to increase the board from three to five and why for the first time it is necessary to pay not only the first three but the five. If it is not the bridge, what else is it?


William Moore Benidickson: I can assure the leader of the opposition that the bridge will not be one of the responsibilities of this commission. You have heard from the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra and the hon. member for Vancouver South, both of whom have outlined the extent of the commerce for which this commission is responsible. When Mr. Speaker was in the chair the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra asked why the commission was being increased. I would say the answer is this:	It has been felt that more minds
should be on the commission, providing wider backgrounds, because today they have to cope with very large commerce indeed. I know representations have been made to the hon. member for Vancouver South, to the minister and to many others, by many of the associations that conduct business in that area. In their opinion it would be a healthy thing to have a larger board, bringing to that board a wider range of experience in the business and commerce which is so diversified in that area.


George Alexander Drew: May I have the figures of the increased commerce say for the last five years, year by year?


William Moore Benidickson: I cannot give that to the leader of the opposition, but shall I say it has been felt probably for some time that this is a desirable move. Like so many other things, it comes to a focus, the suggestion is now being made, action is being taken upon it and legislation brought down.


George Alexander Drew: I happen to know this area very well, Mr. Chairman, although I am not a resident of it. The reason I say that is that I have had many occasions to cross the bridge which is under discussion, and for which I must emphasize the dominion government is responsible no matter what arrangements are made with the provincial government. One of the reasons it has a very direct concern is that it is the way one must go to the airport

which is maintained by the Department of Transport. That extremely important airport is at times handicapped-


William Moore Benidickson: It is maintained by the city of Vancouver.


Mr. Croll:: You are in the wrong airport.


George Alexander Drew: No. That airport is maintained wholly by the Department of Transport, as the hon. member will find out if he checks.


Mr. Sinclair:: No.


George Alexander Drew: Certainly it is, and the hon. member knows it perfectly well. There are services there-


James Sinclair: Radio, yes.


George Alexander Drew: -under the Department of Transport. The government is responsible for the maintenance of the services at that airport. For that reason the government has a direct responsibility for the access to the airport, and that road is over the bridge in question. I am not simply trying to extend the discussion, but I do think everyone believes that when we are told that for the first time the government proposes to pay the commission, and the number of commissioners is to be increased from three to five, there should be an assurance at the same time that the government will accept responsibility, in co-operation with the other authorities, for completing an adequate bridge to provide for access to that airport.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I am not going to talk about a bridge, because I do not think it comes properly into this discussion. However, if I were going to talk about it, and knew that in doing so I would be out of order, I would not say anything about it until I had finished. I am sure, however, that no one knows the bridge better than I do, because forty-three years ago I drove a milk truck over it; and one was allowed only to walk his horse over it at that time.
The point I wish to mention was one to which reference has been made by the leader of the opposition. I refer to the necessity for increasing the number of commissioners. I presume the function of the commissioners is to decide on policy. After they have decided on policy, they have a staff to carry it out. There is no doubt in the world that since the end of the war-perhaps more particularly in that time-the business done by the North Fraser harbour commissioners has increased tremendously. I think that goes without saying. Anyone who knows anything about the lumbering industry in British Columbia, and the way the export trade has increased, must realize that fact. But when the government is asking everyone to economize, I do not 94699-361
North Fraser Harbour Commission see why in the world two more commissioners should now be appointed to this harbour commission. There is no reason in the world for it, except to make jobs for some people. I suggest the government should consider even now that more commissioners are not required to deal with that business. Three intelligent commissioners can handle the situation as well as five intelligent commissioners, and much better than five unintelligent commissioners.
So I say to the committee and the government that at a time when they are asking housewives who have to feed families to look at every penny before it is spent, the government ought to look at every dollar before it is spent; that is, if the government is going to apply to itself the same restrictions it is applying to the citizens of this country.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Am I correct in believing that up to the present the existing commissioners have not been paid, and that it is now proposed to change the arrangement and pay them?


William Moore Benidickson: No; I said that it was to clear up any ambiguity as to the legality of payment. Actually for some years the commissioners have been paid out of the income of the corporation. They themselves have, by bylaw, received certain fees for their services. In some other harbour legislation on our statute books there is a particular section providing for payment subject to approval by the governor in council. That has not existed in the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act. So there will be no question as to the propriety of what is being done, we are just confirming the practice. From now on the governor in council will have clearly a means of approval.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Could we have a figure as to what was paid to them last year? What was the net revenue last year, and what has it been thus far this year?


William Moore Benidickson: I have not the figure for this year, but last year, 1950, there was an operating surplus, after paying salaries of $7,100, which amounted to $3,786. This was an operating surplus from the income of the corporation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The new commissioners would be paid on the same basis as the old ones?


William Moore Benidickson: Not necessarily. I think, for the first time, as the measure states, the governor in council will be able to determine the proper remuneration for these commissioners. There has been some uncertainty in this respect in the past. I would not want to say what remuneration would be approved.

North Fraser Harbour Commission


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The parliamentary assistant has given us the amount of the surplus after the payment of salaries. What were the gross receipts?


William Moore Benidickson: The addition of the two
figures would give that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No; that would be only the total of surplus and salaries.


William Moore Benidickson: The hon. member is referring to other operating expenses?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, the total gross receipts.


William Moore Benidickson: From the information before me I could not give that figure.


Mr. Ferguson:: Here we are asked to pass a bill to increase expenditures in Canada. Whether it is for the appointment of more commissioners for a harbour board in Vann couver, or for one ini Halifax, it is just the same thing. What was the surplus in 1949?


William Moore Benidickson: On the same basis, there was a deficit of $2,860.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What wais paid in that year?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We now find we have a surplus of something more than $3,700, and this encourages the government to go ahead with the appointment of two more commissioners. With the slightest degree of encouragement, this government will squander the people's money. It will grab it with both hands; and here is a clear-cut instance. At a time when the government is calling on everybody in Canada to save in order to have money to buy bread and butter, this government makes provision for two more positions in the Vancouver harbour organization. From Liberal members from Vancouver we hear about the millions of dollars in trade along their coast. Yet the figures for this harbour in one year have shown a loss, rather than a profit. There was a slight profit in 1950; and, after it, all hands are getting on board. They say, "Go ahead; the country will have to pay for these gentlemen." When will this government stop that kind of nonsense?


Alphonse Fournier: When you stop asking for bridges.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Oh, the Minister of Public Works must economize. "You cannot have this building". "You cannot have that building". "There is a war on". That is one of the reasons I am on my feet tonight. I agree with the Minister of Public Works-


Alphonse Fournier: Thank you.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: -that we should not be squandering money when there is a real war in Korea.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
(Mr. Benidickson.)


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: There is laughter from my hon. friend over there. It is a wonder most Liberal members in the house do not burst out in laughter, with a real war in Korea, and men giving their lives for the British empire and the United Nations. Still we hear laughter from these members in the House of Commons, when matters are brought to their attention. There is a continuous squandering of public funds. The Minister of Public Works has intimated that hon. members should ask only for such things as are absolutely necessary in their constituencies. I believe most hon. members have done just that. But here we have a bill providing for two more salaries to be paid at this beautiful location in British Columbia. I warn the Minister of Public Works that from now on I shall ask for many things for my constituency for which I have refrained from asking. I shall do this because I see this -bill which provides for salaries to two more men who are to idle their time away on a board, those salaries to be paid by the taxpayers of Canada.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, my riding does not abut that part of the Fraser river which comes under the jurisdiction of this harbour board, but it is closer to it than the ridings of some hon. members who have been speaking with such authority. Like the hon. member for Vancouver East, I have known this part of Vancouver for many years. I was raised close to the banks of this part of the river and I have been able to watch the changes that have taken place in the last thirty years. This is not the main mouth of the Fraser river we are dealing with, that mouth farther to the south where the British Columbia steamers pass on their way to Westminster. This is a small arm of the Fraser which empties on the boundary between Vancouver and Richmond. When this harbour board was set up the primary idea was to protect farmers on either side from damage done by the small craft plying these waters. This area is heavily diked, and that is the main reason there is municipal representation on this little board. During the last fifteen years the whole character of this stream has changed, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra who used to have it in his riding.


Howard Charles Green: It is in my riding now.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: They are trying to push you right out of the province.


James Sinclair: One of the main problems in the lower mainland right now is the industrial development on this branch. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said, twenty years ago all the industry was located

in False creek. The whole character of the stream has changed and most of the traffic is logging traffic from such ridings as Comox-Alberni and my own riding. Logs are towed down to the sawmills and plywood plants, and one of the great problems is navigation of great log booms in the narrow river.
This is not the case of a Liberal government squandering money, it is a matter of looking after this primary industry. The logging industry have asked for better administration of this stream, in view of its changing character. The industry which is paying the shot wants representation. The towboat men who bring down these enormous booms of logs will also have representation. Far from it costing the federal government any money, the cost will be paid out of the charges levied on this increased traffic.
I speak with some fervour on this because I am the member for Vancouver harbour. The Lions gate bridge and the second narrows bridge, much bigger bridges, have no connection with the national harbours board at Vancouver, any more than this small bridge has any connection with the North Fraser harbour commission. I recall the present senator for Halifax, the former senior member for that riding, speaking in this house and agreeing with me that the national harbours board in Vancouver, as well as in Halifax, could be helped considerably by men who knew the traffic conditions that prevailed, that is, representatives of the logging and shipping industries, fishing and so on. Even though this practice is not followed with the national harbours board, we were particularly happy to have that advice. I am delighted to see the government expanding this North Fraser harbour board to allow the industry which is carrying on there to be represented.


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member for Coast-Capilano will look back I know he will recall that the Vancouver harbour commission was closely identified with the second narrows bridge for a long time. I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant why these new appointments are to be made by the governor in council. Under the present set-up of three members, two are appointed by the governor in council and one by a delegate from the municipality of Richmond, a delegate from the municipality of Burnaby and a delegate from the city of Vancouver. Why are the members not appointed, two by the governor in council, one by the city of Vancouver, one by the municipality of Burnaby and one by the municipality of Richmond? Would not that be a better way to make the appointments?


Donald MacInnis: I have been under a misapprehension in connection with this bill, as
Toronto Harbour Commission I understood that it was to go to a committee along with the other bills we have been discussing. When the parliamentary assistant did not appear to have the information requested I was not greatly concerned, because I thought we would be able to get it in the committee. But I realize now that if we do not get the information now we will not get it at all. There is considerable information that we should have. The parliamentary assistant has told us that the remuneration for the three commissioners amounted to $7,100 and that there was a surplus of $3,700, making a total revenue of $10,800. Is that the total revenue in fact? If there is not more revenue surely three commissioners could handle the business. Are you going to appoint two more commissioners so that they will have a business of $2,000 each to deal with? We ought to have more information than has been given to us. I should like to know the total revenue of the North Fraser harbour board for 1950.


Alphonse Fournier: I should like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. When we are again in committee I am sure the parliamentary assistant will have all the information required.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



TORONTO HARBOUR COMMISSION


Alphonse Fournier: the second reading of Bill No. 9, to amend the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act.
He said: After this bill has received second reading it will be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. Hees:: Is the parliamentary assistant going to make a statement?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, this bill which is being presented on the recommendation of the Toronto harbour commission has three objectives. The first is to define in metes and bounds the present north limit of Toronto harbour. As hon. members who have been there will know, over quite a number of years a great many acres of land have been reclaimed. The original bill of 1911, when it referred to the shore line, referred to what is the north boundary of this area, and it is now to be accurately described by metes and bounds.
558	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Toronto Harbour Commission The second point in the bill refers to a clarification of the authority of the harbour commissioners to regulate and indeed make assessments for services in the transshipment of products across harbour lands. Actually I am informed that in practice they have been charging dues for transshipment, and this is for the purpose of clearing up any ambiguity or lack of authority. While authority actually has not been challenged, it is suggested that section 3 be provided. The third point is to provide for an increase in penalties. In the old act of 1911 there was a $50 fine provided for violation of the regulations of the harbour commission. When I tell hon. members that violation of one of the regulations of the commission might involve the pollution of that important harbour with oil you can imagine that a $50 penalty is more in the nature of a licence to repeat the offence than an actual deterrent in these days.
As the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) has said, in view of the fact that it is thought that in the near future petroleum products may be coming into Toronto harbour in substantial quantities by means of a pipe line, and in view of the fact that natural gas distribution for Toronto is talked about by some, it is felt that the bill should be referred to the committee which is familiar with our pipe lines legislation, the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I understand that those who have any representations to make concerning the effects of the legislation can be heard by that committee.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I feel sure that all members who were guests of the Toronto board of trade during the last session of the house, and who were fortunate enough to see Toronto harbour, will agree that it is undoubtedly the finest fresh water harbour in the country. As soon as the St. Lawrence seaway project is completed Toronto will take its place among the really important harbours of the world. I think all Toronto members sincerely hope the government will take all necessary steps to ensure that the St. Lawrence seaway project is proceeded with as soon as possible.
As the parliamentary assistant has said, one of the purposes of the bill is to grant the harbour commissioners the right to levy tolls on oil and gas to be delivered in future by pipe line, instead of by cargo ship as at the present time. In 1950, total dues collected by the Toronto harbour commission amounted to $307,000, of which $140,000 came from oil deliveries and $118,000 from coal. When the

pipe lines are laid oil deliveries by tanker will, of course, cease; and deliveries of coal will diminish to quite an extent.
One of the purposes of the bill is to ensure that the commissioners are able to levy tolls for the use which will be made of harbour property and dockage facilities by the pipe line companies. It is a perfectly fair request, and I think one that should be acceded to. Some people might be worried about excessive charges being levied as a means of preventing the delivery of oil and gas to the city of Toronto by pipe line. I am assured by the Toronto harbour commissioners that such fears are unfounded, because any schedule of rates will have to be approved by the governor in council before becoming effective. That is an assurance that there will be no blocking of pipe line delivery of oil or gas to the city of Toronto.
With respect to the increase in the amount of penalty that can be levied, the maximum penalty as laid down in 1911 is $50. Two summers ago an oil company dumped a great deal of oil in Toronto bay, which fouled the waters of the bay and all the bathing beaches for the entire summer. It was a tremendous mess. I think anybody would agree that a fine of $50 is not much of a deterrent for that kind of abuse. The Toronto harbour commissioners feel that an absolute minimum of $1,000 is the only kind of deterrent which would make the oil companies more careful in the future. In conclusion, I think the measures outlined in the bill are in every way fair and reasonable. Therefore, as one of the Toronto members, I sincerely hope the bill will be passed.


David Arnold Croll: Mr. Speaker, it was with some restraint that I did not discuss the bill concerning the North Fraser harbour commissioners. However, I thought an opportunity would present itself when the bill now before us was reached. I would probably know a little more about the situation. I think the house will be very happy to know that in this case there are five commissioners and none of them is paid. Nevertheless they are imaginative and competent men who have done the work there for a great number of years. Some of us were fortunate enough to visit Toronto last year and be guests at the luncheon at the Granite club, at which the harbour commissioners were the hosts. It is interesting to note that many of these people have served on the harbour commission for a great number of years. The chairman is W. H. Bosley. Other members are Dr. Michael

Kinsella, Charles Morrow, George A. Wilson and Alexander Dawson. Mr. E. W. Griffiths is the general manager.
I said that the commissioners were both imaginative and competent. They have done a great deal of work in reclaiming land and have assisted the tremendous industrial growth of the city. They have been imaginative in that they have made whatever preparations were possible under the circumstances so that when the St. Lawrence waterway project is completed they will be able to cope with the situation. They too are living in hopes.
The bill provides for certain assessments on pipe lines. In that way they will be able to obtain revenue. The reason I am speaking to the matter now is that I am not a member of the standing committee. It seems to me that is the only source of revenue they have. They need that source of revenue. I am sure the committee will deal with the matter in that light. There is one important aspect of the bill with which I disagree. I think I should say that in order to worry the parliamentary assistant a little bit. A couple of years ago we had a very bad situation in the summer when the oil companies were most careless and messed up the waterfront for almost a month. Somebody slapped them on the wrist. There was a great hullabaloo, but it was finally ascertained that all that could be done under the law was to impose a $50 fine. They were glad to pay the fine as long as they were not bothered any more, and I suppose they continued to mess up the waterfront by being careless. It is all very well to talk about fining them $1,000, but when you realize that they may well pollute the water during the months of June, July or August, when the people of the city need a clean waterfront, $1,000 is an inadequate fine. They ought to be really soaked if they are careless enough to do it again, because it is not necessary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Soak them in the polluted water.


David Arnold Croll: I think the fine ought to be
adequate. I do not think it will happen again, but there is the possibility; and since we do not deal with this matter of the harbour commission every year I hope the committee will give consideration to the imposition of penalties that will be sufficiently imposing and sufficiently important to cause these people to take the ordinary precautions which they ought to take under those circumstances. With that observation, may I say that I support the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
Public Printing and Stationery Act PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY ACT

Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Public Printing and Stationery Act in relation to advances authorized to be made to the king's printer for the purchase of materials to execute orders and requisitions and payment of wages, and to provide that the total amount of such outstanding advances shall at no time exceed the sum of four million dollars.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the Secretary of State
not going to make a statement?


George Alexander Drew: I assume that we are going to
have an explanation from the Secretary of State before the motion is considered.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Mr. Speaker, hon. members
are no doubt aware of the fact that, within the limits of the public service, the public printing and stationery bureau operates to a large extent in the nature of a production and sales organization. Its grants from this house do not include anything for the purposes of these operations but are confined in the main to administrative expenditures. Obviously some working capital is essential in order that the department may carry on its activities, which consist of the purchase of stock and raw materials, and paying the necessary labour for production work. These funds are provided by a credit authorized by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and provided out of the consolidated revenue fund. The amount, of course, varies with the necessities of the department, which have been growing year by year. At the present time we find that with the limit upon that credit of $2 million which has existed, I think, since 1946, it is insufficient; and we are asking that it be increased to $4 million.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think we should
have a detailed explanation of why this larger sum is required. The $2 million is for what is described as a revolving fund and is or should be adequate for substantial transactions. There is nothing yet before the house to suggest why that amount should be doubled. The minister has simply stated that the amounts required have been growing from year to year. We really have nothing else before us.
I am sure this is a time when we should be looking for ways of limiting expenditures on matters of this kind. After all, the amount of the revolving fund required will, of necessity, relate to the amount of printing that is done. I think the first thing we should

Public Printing and Stationery Act have is the figures for printing for the past several years, the anticipated amount for the coming year, and why there would be anticipated for this coming year the necessity for a revolving fund of double the amount that was adequate for the substantial printing requirements of last year.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister would give us that information.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I can give some figures, Mr. Speaker.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I add
one additional question to those the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has asked. May we be informed under what authority provision was made for the $2 million which apparently was previously allowed to the department for working capital?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The authority is an act of parliament of the year 1946. It was an amendment to the Public Printing and Stationery Act, chapter 28, 10 George VI, assented to on July 26, 1946.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Thank you.


Mr. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself fully with the request by the leader of my party for further facts and figures from the minister to explain why it is necessary to double this figure from $2 million to $4 million. I can appreciate the fact that the department is to some extent in the business of printing and publishing. If one looks at the summary of standard objects of expenditure and special categories provided by the Minister of Finance with this year's estimates, one will see that the total under the item "Printing of departmental reports and other publications" for this year is $6,174,309. It is exceedingly difficult indeed to understand why, of that total of $6 million-I am not going to say it is a small total, but by comparison only, it is small-it is necessary to have a revolving fund of $4 million or two-thirds of the total amount. Working capital is usually a much smaller proportion than two-thirds of the total business done by a commercial concern. I do not see why that same general rule of thumb should not be applied in a concern of this type. I think we should get to the point of efficiency where the working capital might be a smaller proportion than two-thirds of what appears to be the total volume of business done. I should like to hear a great deal more explanation than was given.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend leaves out of consideration altogether the fact that the activities of this department are not confined solely to printing. In addition we supply large quantities of stationery. In 1946 the total for printing was $6,260,000. In 1950-51 it was $9,736,000. Our stationery sales in 1946 were slightly over $4 million. In 1950-51 they amounted to nearly $7 million. The total in 1946 was $10,300,000, roughly. In 1950-51 it was $16,626,000.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, apart from the fact that the house seems to be acting as though we were in committee rather than with Your Honour in the chair, it might also be said that we on the opposition side of the house do not feel satisfied with the explanation we are getting for this resolution. I for one think we are entitled to a complete statement as to the reason for bringing in a resolution of this kind. Since the Secretary of State told us of that amending act of 1946 I have sent to the library for the statutes of that year, but they have not yet reached my desk. I should like to know whether the bill to be based upon this resolution merely changes in some statute a figure which now reads $2 million to the figure of $4 million, or whether it will introduce some new principle.
As I read through the resolution, it seems to be fairly wide in its terms. While it refers to the setting up of a fund which shall at no time exceed $4 million, it also relates to the purchase of materials, the execution of orders and requisitions, and further it relates to the payment of wages. I have a particular interest in that latter reference, namely the payment of wages at the printing bureau, and the question of hours and working conditions. I should like to know to what extent this legislation is or is not introducing any new principle so far as parliamentary control over those matters is concerned.
Even while I have been on my feet the statutes of 1946 have been brought to my desk. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has been kind enough to turn up the proper statute, which is chapter 28 of the statutes of that year. I find that is an act which amended the Public Printing and Stationery Act by adding a new section 38. I shall not take the time to read it all now, but it seems that it did set up a revolving fund with a limit of $2 million. If the purpose of the bill that is to be brought in on the basis of this resolution is merely to change the figure of $2 million to the figure

of $4 million, without introducing any new principle, that makes it one that we can take on those terms. But if it is going to involve any other change in relation to the questions of purchasing materials, executing orders and requisitions or the payment of wages, I believe we should have a more complete statement.
I realize the difficult spot in which you, sir, are put in respect to this matter. The Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) has already spoken two or three times, so we can hardly ask him to speak again until we get into committee on the resolution. But I do feel that before we are asked to pass this resolution we should have a more complete explanation of what the policy now is with regard to any revolving fund for the printing bureau, and what it is intended that policy shall be from now on. I am really quite serious in my concern. I want to know who has control of matters relating to the wages of employees at the bureau, and similarly who has control of the hours and working conditions for those employees. I need not take longer at this time, Mr. Speaker, but I feel the house should not be asked to pass this resolution tonight before we have had a more complete explanation of the whole matter.


Mr. Jean Frangois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Just before the minister answers the hon. member, may I say that he must know that the rate of wages is fixed by statute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: I refer him to chapter 162 of the Revised Statutes of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have it on my desk.


Jean-François Pouliot: Paragraph 3 of section 16 states:
No increase of any such rate of wages shall be made so as to raise the rate above that which is, at the time of such increase, paid for similar work in the cities of Montreal and Toronto.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That does not fix the wages; it merely fixes a ceiling.


Jean-François Pouliot: What are the rates in Montreal and Toronto?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Higher than at the bureau.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend knows, and he knows that the wages paid at the printing bureau are exactly the same, $1.65 per hour.
Public Printing and Stationery Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, they are not the same.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend knows it, and I shall tell him something more. One of his friends probably ran for office in the union, but he was not successful. He was defeated by 3 to 1. He knows it, and I need not be any more specific about it. He ran on the very same issue, and he was defeated by the men he was supposed to fight for, who were not interested in his policy. I say that in the friendliest way to the hon. member, because I have the deepest admiration for the printing bureau, for the king's printer, and for the personnel. I find that they do a splendid job. I shall not give any piece of advice to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but I know whereof I speak. I am going to suggest to him that he let sleeping dogs lie, and he will derive great benefit from it.
Every day we see the results of the work at the printing bureau. We have Hansard and we have the papers of the house. It is very seldom that there are clerical errors. The work is splendidly done, in legible type. Let the hon. member look at the mass of printing matter that comes from the bureau, and the quality of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is good.


Jean-François Pouliot: The member agrees with me. Let him agree with the rest of what I have said, and he will not regret it.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I believe the house should have considerable more information on this resolution before it is passed or any vote is taken. Since it is eleven o'clock I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Low the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall resume the debate on the address.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on October 26, 1951.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 31, 1951